Re: Configuration

[dominik vogt gmx de]

On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 02:46:29PM -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The window manager spec has consciously avoided the issue of
> configuration in the past. However, this limits the ability of
> alternative window managers to fully work with desktop environments.
> 
> In GNOME, there are a variety of solutions currently in use:
> 
>  - in a couple places, the WM spec has sort-of dealt 
>    with configuration, e.g. "_NET_NUMBER_OF_DESKTOPS" 
>    messages, so that's used to backend the pager 
>    config option
> 
>  - for something like "current WM theme" or "focus mode" GNOME has a
>    dlopen() module it can load for each WM that changes those things
>    for that WM. In practice only a metacity dlopen() module exists
>    right now. Of course this approach requires writing code for each
>    desktop-WM pair.
> 
> Here is a concrete example we're currently facing. We are implementing
> a "visual bell" feature that flashes the screen (or optionally the
> frame of the window that sends the bell) in response to Xkb bell
> events. IMO the best place to stick this feature is in the WM,
> especially because of the desired flash-the-frame effect.  (Though I
> recognize it could be done outside the window manager, it seems silly
> to have a "visual bell daemon.")
> 
> So there are config options for the bell style and whether to use the
> visual bell at all. These are presented to users probably in the
> Accessibility, Keyboard, and/or Sound control panels - they don't make
> sense in a "window manager" control panel.
> 
> It seems a very special-purpose thing to put in a spec. But if we
> don't, effectively GNOME requires metacity, or at least people have to
> write the dlopen() config module for each WM they want to use.
> 
> My dream solution:
>   
>  - we make GConf or equivalent desktop-independent, and just
>    standardize the config options themselves, and anything 
>    including any WM can read them
> 
> But, that's more long-term.
> 
> My opinion right this second is that we should not load up the EWMH
> with a ton of _NET_CONFIG_VISUAL_BELL etc. root window properties, and
> we should go with the dlopen() module approach. This will definitely
> make it harder to use alternative WMs. But we should be aiming for a
> standard config system over the 2-3 year timeframe, and thus it would
> be better not to create a giant clutter of root window properties.
> 
> (I know even if we have a standard-across-desktops config system not
> everyone will use it, but we can at least write little
> config-system-to-WM-config bridge daemons, which is a per-WM task,
> instead of a per-WM/desktop-pair task. And some people may use it
> directly.)
> 
> Using the dlopen() approach doesn't require action on the part of
> anyone on this list, but I wanted to post my line of thinking in case
> anyone has better ideas.

That does not work.  The window manager does not necessarily run
on the same machine as the desktop environment.  That is one of
the strenghts of X and I would not be willing to give it up.  The
best way in my eyes is to implement some kind of configuration
database on the X server.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

 --
Dominik Vogt, dominik vogt gmx de
Reply-To: dominik vogt gmx de