Re: resizing with gravity

[Russell Shaw <rjshaw netspace net au>]

Sasha Vasko wrote:
> Russell Shaw wrote:
>
> > Sasha Vasko wrote:
> >
> > An X app might open a grid of top-level windows, and rearrange them
> > as more windows are added or removed.
>
> No application should ever rely on being able to do that.

No app for use by general users should expect that. However, for a
developer making a program for a specific platform can do anything
they like, using any assumptions they know to be true.

> > Such apps may exist primarily for embedded systems without a window
> > manager, but it is still useful to be able to use those apps where
> > a WM is running. In that case, the WM must have a policy setting that
> > allows the app to run as designed, or in a semi-managed way.
>
> Yes, that is what I'm saying - user (via window manager configuration) 
> determines how windows are placed. Not the client application.
>
> > > In fact I suggest that we explicitely state the opposite: "Clients 
> > > MUST NEVER EVER include x and y in ConfigureRequests" Although most 
> > > smart and responsibly implemented clients already know that, and 
> > > those who suffer from delusion of grandeur, will always ignore such 
> > > statements anyways, so really there is no point in amending specs.
> > >
> > > Clients should only be able to change size of the top level windows 
> > > and then let window managers reposition them in accordance to its 
> > > policies. Which is were gravity comes into play ( from 
> > > WM_NORMAL_HINTS ). And again, this gravity should be choosen by 
> > > clients based on user request of initial geometry, and should not be 
> > > mangled by the client itself.
> >
> > Window managers have no place in dictating how an application manages
> > its top-level windows.
>
> Last time I checked Window Managers are REQUIRED to intercept 
> ConfigureRequest. It is my humble guess that WM does have a 
> responcibility of placing windows as it sees fit.

It is the responsability of the window manager to place windows as the *user*
has specified it should be done.

The user may tell the WM to not modify the actions of one app that they
may be testing for use on a platform that has no WM.

> > Window managers exist solely for the purpose of the *user* to specify
> > how top-level windows should be managed.
>
> Yes and that is why window managers have THEIR OWN CONFIGURATION 
> settings. And this is why there are so many window managers available!
> But after user has selected particular window manager and configured it 
> how it wants windows to be placed - client have no business whatsoever 
> interfering with that!

Clients will do whatever they have been designed to do. A few clients
may be designed to function well with or without any WM, so when a WM
is running, it will modify the clients actions according to the users
settings.

> > If a user wants to disable automatic window management for one app, then
> > so be it. A WM that doesn't allow this is broken.
>
> ConfigureRequest is still handled by WM anyway you go about it. Clients 
> CANNOT possible determine appropriate x and y as they could never 
> precisely determine the size of the decorations at the time of request. 
> There may not even be a decoration! There could not even be such thing 
> as free placement of the window - WM may tile them all together, or use 
> tabs, and allow only one window on screen at a time. There could be all 
> kinds of placement policies out there, and no client will ever be able 
> to account for all of them.

For a client that is designed to run multiple top-level windows even with
no WM running, the client just needs to do its measurements on the root
window (which could be just inside a WM frame, if a WM is running).

Note that this is for clients specifically designed for WM-less operation,
which are very few, but not non-existant. A developer will need to emulate
WM-less operation in their WM to test or use these apps on their desktop system.

> > > Simple example: a terminal application.
> > > You start it like so: xterm -geometry 100x25-0-0
> > >
> > > Terminal then gets placed at the bottom-right corner of the screen. 
> > > Now what would happen if user decided to change font size in it ? Do 
> > > you really want xterm to try and calculate what its x and y should be 
> > > for ConfigureRequest??? I don't. And I doubt that xterm developers 
> > > differ with me on that one.
> >
> > If an application was designed with the assumption that a WM is always
> > running, then the offset calculation isn't required.
> >
> > If the app was designed assuming a WM may not be present for a 
> > significant time, then i *would* expect the app to do the offset calculation.
>
> Then this must not be part of Extended WINDOW MANAGEMENT specs, if your 
> goal is to account for when WM is not running.

It doesn't need to be a part of the Extended WINDOW MANAGEMENT specs, because
it is just a matter of the user setting their WM to switch off or modify handling
of a certain client they wish to.

The point is that some clients *do* need to set their size and position on the
root window (as opposed to clients having no business setting their position).
When a WM is running, the positioning can be ignored if desired, by the users
WM settings.

> > > You may want to go back in time (around 2000/2001) and re-read ML 
> > > archives on this particular topic.
> >
> > On some GUI lists, the developers object to patches because they say
> > "most users don't need it" or "most users don't do it that way" etc.
> >
> > If each feature of a toolkit satisfied 90% of users (and dissatisfied
> > 10% of users), then after 21 features, 90% of users would object to some
> > feature.
> >
> > This is why users and developers doing non-trivial stuff find GUI on 
> > linux crap compared to some proprietory systems.
> >
> > The proper way to do this stuff is to have it easy to understand 
> > (adequate documentation and help systems), and have every parameter easily 
> > configurable by all users.
>
> Yes, and it is done in the Window Manager's configuration in order to 
> enforce uniform policy on all clients. Clients messing around with 
> placement is exactly the anarchy that you complain about.

What i mean is that some clients may be attempting to set their positioning for
when there is no WM running, but WMs can ignore that if the users desire.