Re: desktop layout patch

Havoc Pennington wrote:
Michael Toomim <toomim OCF Berkeley EDU> writes:

Huh?  Flicker in the pager?  This protocol doesn't affect the pager's
update latency.  This protocol only affects the WM's directional
commands.  If you mean flicker in the wm... well directional commands
can't really "flicker"...

It could affect visible things, no reason why not. It's sort of nice
to avoid intermediate states, I guess, as a general principle.

Ok. So I think I agree with this "intermediate states" point. It makes me see things a little differently:

We have three axes of information here: the number of desktops, the number of rows, and the orientation of the rows. The first is provided by the WM (right?) and the second two are provided by the pager.

Right now, the pager posts a "X, Y, Orientation" tuple, which means that it is effectively posting the WM's "number of desktops" information as well as its own two items.

This means that we have "number of desktops" being transmitted from the WM to the pager, and then back to the WM. Is this the problem that you guys see?

If so, maybe we should go with point C) from me previous post:

"C) If we did want the pager to advertise only the number of wrapped rows, and not the number of columns created by those rows, why not just have the pager advertise only the number of wrapped rows? I suspect that implementations of this protocol will choose to do one or the other anyway, and that the special case will just result all implementations maintaining the same pieces of un-exercised code."

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]