Re: desktop layout patch
- From: Michael Toomim <toomim uclink4 berkeley edu>
- To: wm-spec-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: desktop layout patch
- Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 13:20:34 -0700
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
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."
] [Thread Prev