Re: Review: FULLSCREEN_MONITORS Hint
- From: Grant Patterson <grantp vmware com>
- To: Mark Tiefenbruck <mark fluxbox org>
- Cc: wm-spec-list gnome org, Philip Langdale <plangdale vmware com>, David Trowbridge <davidt vmware com>
- Subject: Re: Review: FULLSCREEN_MONITORS Hint
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:40:48 -0800
On Nov 24, 2007, at 11:48 a, Mark Tiefenbruck wrote:
Presumably the monitors used will be a rectangular array. You could
just specify a top-left and bottom-right monitor. Or maybe it would be
easier to specify x- and y-coordinates in the root window, since
monitors tend to be of different sizes. It really depends on what the
applications are, I think.
Both of those are interesting ideas, in particular specifying root
window coordinates. That would make this a bigger hint/property: an
application could essentially place its window anywhere it wants,
which might be more leeway than people are comfortable with. There
could be some kind of sanity checking, but expecting the WM to
confirm that the given coordinates actually specify a union of
monitors would necessitate implementing a rather messy algorithm in
each WM. What do people think about specifying x/y/width/height
instead of a list of monitor indices?
About your proposal, I think you should let each window manager decide
what to do with transient windows, though I'd expect most will do what
Sure. As Havoc suggested, I'll suggest the center-on-cursor's-monitor
functionality, but not require it.
Also, I don't see any reason the property should be
written by the window manager and communicated through client
messages. The client can add the hint to its own window with fewer
Lots of discussion over this issue. I'm pretty indifferent. The
simple hint is easier to implement, and is the way I did things in
preliminary patches for a few WMs. I see the advantages of the
message/property setup, where the WM can refuse to cooperate, set the
property itself, have defaults, etc. On the other hand, clients can
indeed check for WM compliance by examining their geometry.
While I'm all for allowing WMs to reject FULLSCREEN_MONITORS
requests, I really hope such cases are rare. The way we got here in
the first place was WMs' reluctance to place windows over panels and
other functionality designed to save the client window from itself.
If FULLSCREEN_MONITORS doesn't work in reasonable circumstances,
it'll be no better than the current hack we have to implement multi-
monitor full screen.
] [Thread Prev