Hi lukash, It'd be nice if your MUA can wrap lines at ~72 chars. :)
At 1252965979 time_t, lukash wrote:
> 2. - that would need the .widgets table where you would set the layout, which
> you (jd) want to remove. IMHO, you should have this information anyway,
> either only as an array in C that would list all child widgets belonging to
> the parent widget, and probably also as a read-only table in LUA. You need
> this in the layout function and maybe for other things too. The child list
> would be maintained by setting the .parent to the child. As it should be read
> only (or should it?) in lua, you'd need to go the 1. way anyway :)
Yes, getting children would be a wibox method, so you can arrange all
its children as you please.
> I think it would be good to have the layouts written in C, although it may be
> a bit harder to write them, but it will be faster, and there is no other
> reason to have them in lua? (except someone would wanna write his own, but it
> should not be needed :)
Having layout written in C is just more limiting than having them in Lua
and brings nothings but less extendability (is this a word?).
> Also, note that since you remove the nested tables in .widgets, you'll need
> to nest widgets to create complex layouts, eg. a window with a titlebar:
>
> window = wibox{ parent = screen[1].root, layout = topdown }
> titlebar = wibox{ parent = window, layout = leftright }
> icon = wibox{ parent = titlebar }
> title = wibox{ parent = titlebar }
> ...
> c = client{ parent = window }
>
> Here, the titlebar widget is just a container for the pieces... I guess its
> ok. (btw, .layout on widgets without children should be ignored, thats ok too
> I think)
Yes, it's ok. Wibox can be containers, or can have things drawn inside.
Or even both (might not render very good but YMMV).
> Lastly, if clients and widgets have common properties "inherited" from
> "windows", how will these properties be handled on, for example, the icon
> widget in the example above, ie. in a widget inside a widget? Seems like a
> bit of an inconsistency here (maybe top-level widgets should be
> differentiated after all... we could call them... a wibox, maybe? :D).
It's really not inconsistent. It's how X works after all. :)
> Anyway, I love the idea! I'm looking forward to it :) btw, I've been messing
> with the layouts that Gregor sent, now I'm not sure I should go on, as it
> seems it will be replaced soon now, and the basic layouts are working anyway..
AFAICT, it will not be replaced. It will probably be adapted and used in
a little different way, but not simply removed. So you can go on. :)
Cheers,
--
Julien Danjou
// ᐰ <jul...@danjou.info> http://julien.danjou.info
// 9A0D 5FD9 EB42 22F6 8974 C95C A462 B51E C2FE E5CD
// The more we fly, the more we climb, the more we know that heaven is a lie.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
