Re: WHY: Re: Still need a hint for undecorated windows

[Tuomo Valkonen <tuomov iki fi>]

On 2005-06-24, Bill Haneman <Bill Haneman Sun COM> wrote:
> There aren't enought types to do this.  And I don't think the type 
> system was designed to handle that level of fine control, e.g. we don't 
> want 15 different types.
...
> The app requesting that a toplevel not be decorated is NOT INHERENTLY 
> EVIL, you seem to selectively take use cases where the app tries to "do 
> its own decoration" for the primary app window.  But that's not the only 
> use case, or even the most important or common one.  The problem is that 
> users almost never will want NOTHING to be decorated, that is a corner 
> case.  The more realistic cases for 'desktop' class devices at least, 
> are cases where some windows need to be excluded from decoration.  

You have yet to provide example classes of windows that need special
handling.

> I think at the end of the day there is ample evidence that applications 
> need a "dont change the visuals" hint however because we cannot 
> anticipate all of the window "types" which may need this behavior.  

How about an extensible type system? Or simply a (WM_CLASS, WM_ROLE, 
look&feel) database for WMs that want to support strange behaviours 
for some windows to which apps can install entries when installed 
for those WMs that their authors know of? That should provide the
best app-wm cooperation in those cases.. at least when the app
authors aren't complete idiots.

-- 
Tuomo