On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 04:52:26PM +0200, Matthias Clasen wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 04:33:19PM +0200, Matthias Clasen wrote: > > > Dominik, I saw that you closed that bug. I agree - for the loosing > > windows > > > part. > > > The ignoring _NET_WM_DESKTOP part is still an open bug, IMO. > > > > I disagree on this one. The old window manager can not know how > > many desktops the user has configured in fvwm (and actually not > > even fvwm knows it because it's a dynamic thing the users does, > > not a fixed setting). So dumping windows on any other but the > > default desktop may well cause them to be lost forever. Maybe an > > option to the "-replace" option is in order. > > I think fvwm should pick up the number of desktops from > _NET_NUMBER_OF_DESKTOPS (left behind by the previous wm) and > falling short of that it could at least put windows on the the closest > available desktop (i.e. if you find a toplevel with _NET_WM_DESKTOP=20 > but fvwm is configured with a fixed set of 4 desktops, put the toplevel > on desk 4...)
The notion of a closest available desktop is meaningless in fvwm. Fvwm cannot be configured to use a fixed set of desktops and doing so would limit its functionality. The EWMH spec is simply flawed in respect to desktop handling because it demands that the maximum number of used desktops must be known beforehand. This is not the case in a number of window managers, namely probably all the spin-offs from fvwm. There *are* users who like to always have a 'previous' and a 'next' desk, no matter what desk they're currently working on. The EWMH spec doesn't allow this. It's a typical case where the existing pager implementations in KDE/Gnome needlessly enforced the policy of how to do things in the EWMH - simply because it would have caused more work to do it policy-free. (That's why I'm strongly opposed to using that spec.) Anyway, in the unlikely case that you're really interested in what I think about the EWMH spec, I'd prefer to dicuss that in private. > Out of interest, does fvwm implement the following aspect of EWMH ? > > "The Window Manager should honor _NET_WM_DESKTOP whenever a withdrawn window > requests to be mapped." Luckily, no. It's a write-only property in fvwm (unless I misunderstand the code). Bye Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
