Re: Selection ownership for docks and panels

On Tuesday 04 January 2011 17:46:29 you wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Martin Gräßlin
> <kde martin-graesslin com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 04 January 2011 16:17:40 Sam Spilsbury wrote:
> >> I don't know exactly what would be the right name for this,
> >> considering that we might not want to be replacing entire docks
> >> (indeed, just the tasklist portion is the problematic part), so maybe
> >> it might be appropriate to have a selection method for entire docks
> >> (where 2 docks doesn't make sense, eg docks / panels / anything with
> >> unity / gnome-shell) and one for tasklists (where two docks can
> >> logically co-exist)
> > 
> > From what I understand what you want to protect is the unique information
> > like icon geometry which is controlled by $whatever (it does not have to
> > be a dock, Plasma can have a tasks manager on the desktop window). This
> > means that it has to be about whatever you want to protect and not about
> > the docks.
> > 
> > But I don't think that you want to protect the icon geometry. You try to
> > fix symptoms instead of the problem. The symptoms are: two $whatever
> > managing the icon geometry, but the problem is that there are two
> > desktop shells. What I think what you want is a way to protect that
> > there is more than one desktop shell. That is a selction for desktop
> > shell. So you would have to do "unity -- replace" or "plasma-desktop
> > --replace" to switch desktop shell.
> > 
> > What do you think about that? Does that fix what you want to achieve
> > (just for the case you aren't I have some arguments against protecting
> > the icon geometry
> > 
> > :-)
> Good idea actually - so in that case we'd need to tweak the spec a
> little so that all of these docks etc register to be part of one
> "shell" (eg gnome-desktop, plasma-desktop, plasma-netbook,
> gnome-shell, unity-shell).
> This means that you can't run custom docks at the same time as plasma
> though ...
I would not expect all these strange (and nowadays often unmaintained) docks 
to become spec compliant. We would probably have to live with it in the same 
way as we have to live with legacy windows. I don't think there is a problem 
when there is an additional dock - in that case the user explicitly decided to 
use something which is not part of the desktop shell and he cannot expect that 
things work perfectly.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

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