On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:39:03 +1000 David Seikel <onef...@gmail.com> said:
> 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. we could just have a default comp cfg file within the standard etc. profile(s) that contains this plus other specific matches. just one thing - order matters so just having a file is not enough. knowing where to put it in a list relative to others is needed too. -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ras...@rasterman.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
