On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Aaron J. Seigo <ase...@kde.org> wrote: >> If someone did this, would you accept the patch? I described a > > sure; i'd recommend doing it as a proof-of-concept first in a new Containment > plugin, so that it isn't bumping into existing layout code. it would make it > easier to test and work on strategies.
I can do that, I think. > for testing, i'd also recommend using something like plasmoidviewer: a simple > one-window app that is a Plasma::View which loads a Corona and this new > Containment. it could then have some controls on it to change the size of the > window to different common screen resolutions (maybe a toolbar with some > buttons?). this would allow easy testing, and shouldn't be more than a hundred > or so LOC. Wouldn't it be easier to just use a virtual machine and resize the machine arbitrarily? That way we don't have to depend on it matching what are currently common resolutions (although with kwin it is easy to make a virtual machine a specific resolution). > there is a very real upper limit on what can be accomplish here, though, > through simple rearrangement. going from 1900x1200 to 640x480 is an absurdity > and with enough widgets to cover a good portion of the higher resolution it > just won't be possible to fit them in the lower resolution. Yes, the goal is to work with common use-cases, and you won't really see 640x480 all that often nowadays. There are corner-cases for which there is probably no good solution, the goal is to make it as useful as possible in as wide a variety of situations as possible. > bouncing between two resolutions will similarly get annoying if it means > constantly re-arranging the widgets (e.g.: you move from large res A to small > res B, then you move around and resize some widgets, then go back to res A.. > what happens? if the positions/resolutions are saved per-containment-geometry > then those moves will be lost. just one example of the difficulty here.) As I said in the bugs.kde.org report I linked to, changes would be converted back to be relative to the original screen resolution and stored in that manner. > perhaps a solution is to just hide or put into scrollable region widgets that > don't fit well. There are requests for a scrollable version of the desktop containment, but I think that would be better as a separate containment. > or perhaps the desktop layout could use an anchor style layout with the ratio > to the edges or other landmarks being used. That would be a solution, but I think that would require much more major changes, at least to the plasma configuration files. I was trying to come up with a solution that work would with existing plasma configurations. >> you can end up with many of your widgets mostly-off screen > > while this can happen with FolderView, i don't think this should be possible > with DefaultDesktop. I mis-spoke, "mostly" is incorrect, the word I meant to use is "much". For instance, if you have a folderview widget the height of the screen, then go to a smaller screen, then part of your folderview widget will be below the bottom of the screen. -Todd _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel