> On May 12, 2014, 1:04 p.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: > > That's not correct. Primary, at least, needs to have special treatment and > > get the 0-named containment assigned always, which is what the current > > naming is about. > > > > As for the rest of the screens it's probably best to sort them rather than > > keeping them as they come like now. Furthermore, you'll want also to insert > > the new screens in the correct position then, and shift the rest of the > > screens. > > > > Martin Klapetek wrote: > > That's not correct. Primary, at least, needs to have special treatment > and get the 0-named containment assigned always, which is what the current > naming is about. > > Why? > > > As for the rest of the screens it's probably best to sort them rather > than keeping them as they come like now. > > They are sorted from left to right...or what sorting you have in mind? > > > Furthermore, you'll want also to insert the new screens in the correct > position then, and shift the rest of the screens. > > Yes. > > Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: > Because if the user has set up his first containment with all panels, we > expect him to have it in the screen he explicitly said it's the primary one. > This way he'll be able to put the most attention to the screen he > selected and get the notifications, the task manager and whatnot. Assuming > all this goes to the left-most screen and disregarding the primary setting is > not acceptable, considering the current design. > > Martin Gräßlin wrote: > does that need to be 0-based for that? It sounds like two orthogonal > things. One is to have a sane ordering by going e.g. left to right, the other > is honoring the primary screen for placing the main containment. > > Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: > Well, what do you think this number is for? > > Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: > Just re-read and realized my answer is not very helpful there. > > The internal Corona containment id is what we're sorting here and 0 > refers to the first containment, 1 to the second and so forth. This way, when > we restore, we match 0 with primary, 1 with the first reported one, and so > forth. > > Having them sorted from left to right (or top to bottom) makes sense > because it makes the behavior more predictable but the screen number doesn't > indicate where the screen is placed. > > Martin Gräßlin wrote: > that's up to us to decide. Numbering screens doesn't make sense (TM). So > if we want to use numbering we should use something which makes sense. > Ordering by left to right or by available outputs could make sense. > > My prefered solution were that all numbering get's removed and replaced > by a useful metric such as output identifiers. > > Martin Klapetek wrote: > As we also export the screen number to the plasmoids, it's useful if it > actually corresponds with something the plasmoids can use, like QScreen (even > if shit). > > So I would propose to let screen numbers be just that - screen numbered > in left-to-right order and then match containments with actual screen > identifiers, either screen name (from edid) or the xrandr name like "DVI-D-0" > and then match those. This actually guarantees things will stay consistent > even if you change order of your screens and generally makes things more > deterministic. > > I would also propose to take the primary screen into account and make it > the default desktop (where panels and notifications and whatnot get placed) > after first run. In case user changes his primary output, I would switch the > panel only if there is no other panel/configured stuff on the other screen, > but I'm not so sure about this. But either way, even if we switch the > screens, we just match the "primary" containment with the new screen > identifier, so all will just work. > > I also volunteer to do all this of course.
sounds like a good proposal to me. What do you think Aleix? - Martin ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/118094/#review57757 ----------------------------------------------------------- On May 12, 2014, 12:39 p.m., Martin Klapetek wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/118094/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 12, 2014, 12:39 p.m.) > > > Review request for Plasma, Aleix Pol Gonzalez and Martin Gräßlin. > > > Repository: plasma-workspace > > > Description > ------- > > Even though numbered outputs have their flaws, we still use them pretty much > everywhere and everywhere we use outputs numbered from left to right, so > let's use the same in Plasma. > > This seems to fix most of my multiscreen issues now, namely bug 334500 and > bug 334502. > > Also: > > <mgraesslin> I don't know - having primary as 0 is a bit strange > <mgraesslin> 1, 2, 3, 0 > <mgraesslin> ? > <mgraesslin> that was from left to right > > > Diffs > ----- > > shell/shellcorona.cpp b0b139d > > Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/118094/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Martin Klapetek > >
_______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
