Re: _NET_WORKAREA and dual head
- From: Billy Biggs <vektor dumbterm net>
- To: Rob Adams <readams readams net>
- Cc: wm-spec-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: _NET_WORKAREA and dual head
- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:25:31 -0600
Rob Adams (readams readams net):
> On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 10:59 -0600, Billy Biggs wrote:
>
> > Just looking around at the dual head setups here, people seem to
> > like panels on the inner edges of the monitors since it's quick to
> > access from both displays.
>
> Really? I've never seen anybody do this. This setup is not
> well-supported right now because of the way the struts work.
It seems well liked and works with Windows XP.
> > You can determine this simply using the XINERAMA information and
> > the strut rectangles.
>
> Actually, you can't. The way the specification is defined the struts
> are specified in root window coordinates, and are not limited to an
> xinerama. [...]
>
> As current written, the specification does not allow internal struts
> with anything like reasonable semantics.
>
> We have the _STRUT_PARTIAL property that have sufficient flexibility
> to enable full-fledged struts on non-internal xinerama edges, though
> it requires a fair bit of algorithmic sophistication to implement this
> in the window manager and is a bit of a pain to do correctly for a
> client as well. At the time, however, we didn't deem internal edge
> struts sufficiently important.
I'm sorry, I thought that _NET_WM_STRUT was deprecated in favour of
_NET_WM_STRUT_PARTIAL. Furthermore, I thought metacity at least by
looking at it has these get_work_area_xinerama calls which on first pass
seemed to be built to handle these cases. It shouldn't be any more
difficult than maximize logic with a panel on just one head.
-Billy
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]