On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 19:16:19 -0500 Michael Blumenkrantz <michael.blumenkra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 08:15:24 +0900 > Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <ras...@rasterman.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:47:07 +0000 Chris Michael > > <devilho...@comcast.net> said: > > > > > On 30/01/14 18:36, Michael Blumenkrantz wrote: > > > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:32:33 +0000 > > > > Chris Michael <devilho...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >> If it is left to the User, than the argument is Moot !!!!! > > > >> > > > >> They can add/del Any Number of Matches that They wish ... > > > >> Just NOT in favor of a billion App Name matches through Our > > > >> codebase !! > > > > > > > > I hardly think we'll end up with half that number. People here > > > > are too lazy to bother adding them. > > > > > > > That is Not the point Mike, and you Know that ;) > > > > > > >> > > > >> I am NOT saying You're commit is bad !! I am simply saying: > > > >> "At What Point do we Draw a line and Stop adding Specific > > > >> Names" to our codebase ?? > > > > > > > > If it becomes a problem then we can make decisions at that > > > > point. I'm skeptical that there's a need for it. > > > > > > > At this moment, No. But there is my Argument ... WHERE does this > > > line get drawn ;) > > > > i get your point chris - and you are right. this is the initial > > config you end up with when you had no prior comp config. the rest > > of the config is very generic (only matches window types). eg of > > type tooltip, or combo etc. etc. and notice these use the men style > > which zooms in from the top edge rather than center. not on pure > > consistency geany matches shoud use the menu style here as its the > > same purpose. > > > > your point is - is there some OTHEr property on the match window > > geany uses that allow us to identify it that is more of a > > class/type rather than by name. i agree the name match here that is > > app specific is out-of-place and your argument of a slippery slope > > is right. is there an alternative more generic match to use that > > catches this PLUS a whole bunch of other types of window that serve > > the same purpose in many other apps. > > > > reality is that it may be best to suggest a patch or change to the > > authors of geany to make their popups have a type or class so that > > ALL compositors can detect them as they are intended - eg as kins > > of tooltip/combobox dropdowns or menu dropdowns etc. - is there a > > type we missed? i mean types set on override redirect windows - > > actually we did miss some i think. > > > > E_WINDOW_TYPE_MENU > > E_WINDOW_TYPE_SPLASH > > E_WINDOW_TYPE_NOTIFICATION > > E_WINDOW_TYPE_DND > > > > at least 2 of those i am certain might get set on override-redirect > > windows. > > > > > >> > > > >> Yea, You use Geany so this is Helpful to SOME developers ... > > > >> but Where does this stop ?? (That is my argument). > > > > > > > > It stops when someone wants to add matches for apps that nobody > > > > else uses or has heard of, or when it starts becoming a > > > > memory/performance issue. > > > > > > > Sure. Memory or Performance I can understand. But (counter > > > argument) I don't use Geany, so HOW does this help me ? ;) I use > > > jed. If I added one for Jed (which almost nobody uses) would MY > > > case stand ??? ;) > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Not technical ! Technically, you are correct... But a line has > > > >> to be drawn Somewhere....Else we end up w/ 1 million app names > > > >> in our codebase... If the USER wants to add more, then Fine !! > > > >> That is not Up to Us... > > > >> > > > >> That's all I am saying Mike. It's not Personal, HELL It's not > > > >> even Technical .... But where do we STOP adding app names ?? ;) > > > > > > > > I'm not trying to make it personal, I'm just not using smiley > > > > faces after every sentence ;):):P:D:D:D > > > > > > > Then you are FAILING to convey your feelings/points clearly ;) I > > > use them (perhaps overly so) to convey feelings or points of > > > interest. Sometimes it helps to know when a person is kidding or > > > serious ;) > > > > > > Look, I am not going to debate a revert here. That is not needed. > > > I am simply stating: "Where do we drawn the line w/ this Specifc > > > App name" stuff ?? My App is better than Yours ? :P This is not > > > High School ;) > > > > > > I am simply saying this: "Let's Keep All This Specific App Name > > > Stuff" to a BARE minimum !!". that's all. End of Argument. I have > > > no REAL technical reason saying your commit is bad. In fact, I > > > have NEVER said that ! ... > > > > > > But as an EFL developer (for a long time), I don't want to see a > > > million cases for specific apps in our base !! ;) End of My > > > Argument ;) Take it for what it says. Not personal mate ;) > > > > > > dh > > > > > > >> > > > >> dh > > > >> > > > >> On 30/01/14 18:23, Michael Blumenkrantz wrote: > > > >>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:19:51 +0000 > > > >>> Chris Michael <devilho...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> I am arguing against adding 9,000 corner cases for various > > > >>>> app names that don't behave !! Hate to see ANY of the code > > > >>>> littered with: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> If App Name == "Some Dumb App"; Do This > > > >>>> > > > >>>> type of bullshit. We've been there before. It sucked then, > > > >>>> It will still suck !! > > > >>>> > > > >>>> That is all I am saying. I have no "Technical" argument > > > >>>> against your "specific" commit ... > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I just Don't want to see this this Horrible pattern of: "If > > > >>>> This App, Do This" across the whole code base !! > > > >>>> > > > >>>> dh > > > >>> > > > >>> This seems to be arguing against the concept of comp matches > > > >>> in the first place since, in theory, a user could create > > > >>> 9,000 comp matches, which would cause the matching code to > > > >>> become exactly as you described after loop unrolling. > > > >>> > > > >>> In the case where adding an application-specific match for a > > > >>> common application dramatically improves the user experience, > > > >>> I think it's worthwhile to add it. > > > >>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On 30/01/14 18:12, Michael Blumenkrantz wrote: > > > >>>>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 18:06:01 +0000 Chris Michael > > > >>>>> <devilho...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> On 30/01/14 18:00, Michael Blumenkrantz wrote: > > > >>>>>>> I'm fine with adding more cases for commonly used > > > >>>>>>> applications if it results in a more positive experience > > > >>>>>>> for users. At worst it will just require that some of the > > > >>>>>>> infrastructure be optimized a little. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> And I am 900% in favor of that!!! ;) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> But adding things based on App Name is destined to fail > > > >>>>>> eventually ... You Cannot Possibly Cover ALLL possible app > > > >>>>>> names is what I am saying ...Has to be a better way ;) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Not against the idea. I love it !! Just against the "trap > > > >>>>>> this name" theory ;) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> dh > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> I don't understand what your argument is. The point of comp > > > >>>>> matches is so that you can match against properties such as > > > >>>>> the name, but you're arguing against matching the name as a > > > >>>>> property? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:58:21 +0000 Chris Michael > > > >>>>>>> <devilho...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Fair enough .... in But "allowing this" to happen means > > > >>>>>>>> there are a (possible) million cases where we need to do > > > >>>>>>>> this again ... > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Simply wondering "Is there Not a Better Way ?" > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> dh > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On 30/01/14 17:52, Michael Blumenkrantz wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> Except that they can't be added generically, which is > > > >>>>>>>>> the entire reason why specific matches exist. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:49:14 +0000 Chris Michael > > > >>>>>>>>> <devilho...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> IMO, would make more sense to add them Generically > > > >>>>>>>>>> based on window type or class or something.... > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> To add them based on app name or something is sheer > > > >>>>>>>>>> sillines... > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> dh > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 30/01/14 17:12, Mike Blumenkrantz wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> discomfitor pushed a commit to branch master. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> http://git.enlightenment.org/core/enlightenment.git/commit/?id=5c5a89bfecc85a86d2d17b92f6743a0dabe0820b > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> commit 5c5a89bfecc85a86d2d17b92f6743a0dabe0820b > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Author: Mike Blumenkrantz <zm...@samsung.com> Date: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thu Jan 30 10:45:46 2014 -0500 > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> add default comp match for geany autocompete window > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> given that we're compositing-only now, we should be > > > >>>>>>>>>>> adding more of these for common apps to improve the > > > >>>>>>>>>>> user experience on a base configuration --- > > > >>>>>>>>>>> src/bin/e_comp_cfdata.c | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 > > > >>>>>>>>>>> insertions(+) > I didn't realize this was going to be such a hassle when I added it. > Gone now. /thread /me wakes up, reads the thread, and reopens it so I can have my two cents... Perhaps a compromise, don't put these magic matches in the code, but instead have some method keeping them external. As was pointed out, users can setup their own matches, which go into the config. Maybe we can invent some way of distributing these sorts of matches that work around known problems? Then they live in the config, not the code, users don't have to keep reinventing the work arounds, but can instead grab the "geany_fix.eet" file? Then the jed_fix.eet file wont clutter up their computers. /me goes off to get caffeine and wake up properly, then goes back to work on writing his own code editor. -- A big old stinking pile of genius that no one wants coz there are too many silver coated monkeys in the world.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WatchGuard Dimension instantly turns raw network data into actionable security intelligence. It gives you real-time visual feedback on key security issues and trends. Skip the complicated setup - simply import a virtual appliance and go from zero to informed in seconds. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=123612991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
