On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 02:02:49AM +0100, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 01:38, Ben Jansens wrote: > > > > The one real advantage I see to 'history placement' is that it is > > implicit. You move the window, you close the window, you open the > > window, and its in the right spot. > > > > What I'm not sure about is that fact that we seem to be changing the > > default behavior for applications, which is going to break legacy > > apps. xterm was a good example of this. Now legacy apps that dont want > > to have their position remembered will be horribly annoying to use > > with this history enabled. > > I don't see this. These legacy apps most likely had their initial > positions mangled by some Smart- or Clever- or WhateverPlacement > function, so what will change if they have their initial position > mangled by HistoryPlacement now ? Unless they set USPosition/PPosition, > in which case nothing will change. I don't think most window managers' did placement routines where all windows of the same hints got placed in the same position though. A window which didn't asked to be placed wouldn't be placed on top of the other 4 of the same type. It will make history placement rather anti-productive if all xterms get placed at the same position, and all nautilus windows, etc. I understand this is somewhat implementation specific, but the general idea of this technique seems to be unfriendly towards any application which doesn't take this into account. Ben -- I am damn unsatisfied to be killed in this way. http://www.icculus.org/openbox/
Attachment:
pgpc2hSGtx3Qo.pgp
Description: PGP signature