GNOME.org
 

Re: WM features 2

hi all,
Thanks for your responses, I would like to go deeper in the subject if you don't mind. I read in WM spec 1.3 about modality ( http://standards.freedesktop.org/wm-spec/wm-spec-1.3.html#id2494205), it is told that "window managers offer support for handling modality". Which WM can do this? Maybe FVWM... because there is a "ModalityIsEvil" option that allows Motif based application to have modal dialogs! What about icewm?
I also want to know which WMs are Motif compliant, i mean WMs that support Motif proprietaries protocols. Any idea? 
How will Enlightenment behave with a Motif based application using modal dialogs ?
 
Thanks

On Jan 25, 2008 5:00 PM, <wm-spec-list-request gnome org> wrote:
Send wm-spec-list mailing list submissions to
       wm-spec-list gnome org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
       http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
       wm-spec-list-request gnome org

You can reach the person managing the list at
       wm-spec-list-owner gnome org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of wm-spec-list digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Re: struts, workareas and xinerama (Lubos Lunak)
  2. Re: struts, workareas and xinerama (Lubos Lunak)
  3. Re: WM features (Lubos Lunak)
  4. Re: WM features (Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman))


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:12:41 +0100
From: Lubos Lunak <l lunak suse cz>
Subject: Re: struts, workareas and xinerama
To: wm-spec-list gnome org
Message-ID: <200801241912 41741 l lunak suse cz>
Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"

On Monday 21 of January 2008, Dana Jansens wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2007 8:52 AM, Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com> wrote:
> > Dana Jansens wrote:
> > > This has the property of being backwards compatible with previous
> > > versions of the specification.  An application can read only the first
> > > n (number of desktops) dimensions and ignore the remainder, and it
> > > will not end up putting icons in nowhereland.
> >
> > It's probably not backward compatible; I know I've often written code
> > that verifies the exact property length on various properties.

 I wonder where people initially did not think of backwards compatibility or
whether they expected nobody would do this. This is rather annoying :-/.

> So, no one around here seems to have any objections to this idea re:
> the WORKAREA property.  And I've seen more than one window manager
> author complain about the lack of support for non-trivial xinerama
> setups.  I would suggest that _NET_WORKAREA be deprecated in favour of
> a new property, _NET_WORKAREA_MONITORS.  The same functionality of
> using _NET_WORKAREA can be acheived from _NET_WORKAREA_MONITORS.
>
> The format, as previously stated would be:
> _NET_WORKAREA_MONITORS, x, y, width, height CARDINAL[][][4]/32
>
> Which is an array of (x, y, width, height) tuples.
>
> A window manager MAY combine two or more monitors together into a
> single (x, y, width, height) in the property, if it deems this
> appropriate (basically, only the trivial xinerama case, without any
> partial struts along the long edge, all monitors using the same sized
> desktop).

 Especially given this, I suggest _NET_WORKAREA_AREAS as the name. Well, not
that nice name either, but I'm bad at names.

> I would like to write a proposal for this if there are still no
> objections.  However even simple submissions with no objections in the
> past seem to get ignored on this list.  Who are those currently
> responsible for making commits to the wm-spec document?

 I don't think there's anybody "responsible".  The spec is a collective work.
If you want something added to it, post a proposal here, incorporate
feedback, repeat until there's no feedback, ask for inclusion. I can do the
commit then if you have no account.

--
Lubos Lunak
KDE developer
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.   e-mail: l lunak suse cz , l lunak kde org
Lihovarska 1060/12   tel: +420 284 028 972
190 00 Prague 9      fax: +420 284 028 951
Czech Republic       http//www.suse.cz


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:19:10 +0100
From: Lubos Lunak <l lunak suse cz>
Subject: Re: struts, workareas and xinerama
To: wm-spec-list gnome org
Message-ID: <200801241919 10837 l lunak suse cz>
Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"

On Wednesday 13 of June 2007, Dana Jansens wrote:
> Secondly, I am in need of some clarification in terms of struts with
> Xinerama. In the above example, say an application set a strut on the
> "right side" with a length of the 1st monitor.  Where exactly does
> this strut reside? It could reside entirely on the first monitor, it
> could reside on the second monitor (and the nowhereland above it) or
> it could be split between the two monitors.
>
> I expect there is no answer to this question, which is frustrating
> because this is a real-life setup that one of my users has talked
> about recently.  Perhaps _NET_WM_STRUT_PARTIAL is just not enough, and
> needs to be able to specify the monitor as well as start/length.

 Correct. The strut hints talk about desktop (root window) edges, so they
don't support reserved areas "inside". That basically matches _NET_WORKAREA,
so if you want to extend one, you probably want to do the same with the other
one.

--
Lubos Lunak
KDE developer
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.   e-mail: l lunak suse cz , l lunak kde org
Lihovarska 1060/12   tel: +420 284 028 972
190 00 Prague 9      fax: +420 284 028 951
Czech Republic       http//www.suse.cz


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:26:13 +0100
From: Lubos Lunak <l lunak suse cz>
Subject: Re: WM features
To: wm-spec-list gnome org
Message-ID: <200801241926 13520 l lunak suse cz>
Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="utf-8"

On Monday 21 of January 2008, kettani lalla fatima zahra wrote:
> Hi all,
> i have a question about window manager's features. Is there any WM that can
> force an application specific window to behave as a system modal window?
>  *I know for example that mwm offers XmNmwmInputMode* resource that can be
> used by an application to set a system modal window, but i am interested by
> a customisation that could be done through WM without being invoked by the
> application it self.

 If by system modal you mean a window that will block all remaining windows,
then that is generally, with very few exceptions, considered to be evil and I
doubt you'll get support for something like that. Especially given that the
few expections work like described in another answer, with override redirect
and grab.

> And for screensavers, is there a WM that can allow a program to pop up over
> a screen saver?

 No. It is up to the screensaver what it allows, or rather not allows, to be
visible.

--
Lubos Lunak
KDE developer
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.   e-mail: l lunak suse cz , l lunak kde org
Lihovarska 1060/12   tel: +420 284 028 972
190 00 Prague 9      fax: +420 284 028 951
Czech Republic       http//www.suse.cz


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:19:00 +1100
From: Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <raster rasterman com>
Subject: Re: WM features
To: Lubos Lunak <l lunak suse cz>
Cc: wm-spec-list gnome org
Message-ID: <20080125111900 baa15a2b raster rasterman com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:26:13 +0100 Lubos Lunak <l lunak suse cz> babbled:

> On Monday 21 of January 2008, kettani lalla fatima zahra wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > i have a question about window manager's features. Is there any WM that can
> > force an application specific window to behave as a system modal window?
> >  *I know for example that mwm offers XmNmwmInputMode* resource that can be
> > used by an application to set a system modal window, but i am interested by
> > a customisation that could be done through WM without being invoked by the
> > application it self.
>
>  If by system modal you mean a window that will block all remaining windows,
> then that is generally, with very few exceptions, considered to be evil and I
> doubt you'll get support for something like that. Especially given that the
> few expections work like described in another answer, with override redirect
> and grab.

agreed. irrespective of whatever a spec might say in mwm or netwm - i know i
would never support such a feature in enlightenment. it simply removes control
from a user. dialogs that hold your whole screen hostage are just evil. if you
must do it - then it will be your extra level of work to grab keyboard, mouse,
and so on - hopefully giving you a dis-incentive to try do this as it raises
the barrier of entry for the app programmer.

> > And for screensavers, is there a WM that can allow a program to pop up over
> > a screen saver?
>
>  No. It is up to the screensaver what it allows, or rather not allows, to be
> visible.
>
> --
> Lubos Lunak
> KDE developer
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.   e-mail: l lunak suse cz , l lunak kde org
> Lihovarska 1060/12   tel: +420 284 028 972
> 190 00 Prague 9      fax: +420 284 028 951
> Czech Republic       http//www.suse.cz
> _______________________________________________
> wm-spec-list mailing list
> wm-spec-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list
>


--
------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)    raster rasterman com



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
wm-spec-list mailing list
wm-spec-list gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list


End of wm-spec-list Digest, Vol 40, Issue 5
*******************************************

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]