[dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-09 Thread Christoph Lohmann
Greetings comrades, attached is the patch I proposed some months ago, to add support for dock windows in dwm, polished for current r1575:b899c8748939. As you can see on [0], svkbd is now taking a reserved space, which it inherits on all tags. That way for example an on-screen keyboard can be show

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-16 Thread Anselm R Garbe
Hi together, On 9 October 2011 21:17, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote: > attached is the patch I proposed some months ago, to add support > for dock windows in dwm, polished for current r1575:b899c8748939. I'm back from a longer vacation and take this patch under review to think if it wou

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-16 Thread markus schnalke
[2011-10-16 17:54] Anselm R Garbe > > Do we really agree that touch interfaces do suck less? No. meillo

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-16 Thread Kurt H Maier
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > Do we really agree that touch interfaces do suck less? No. -- # Kurt H Maier

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-16 Thread Peter John Hartman
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 12:13:03PM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote: > On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > > Do we really agree that touch interfaces do suck less? I think there's a category error or something here. Touch interfaces, indeed, entire touch-driven devices exist. Suc

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-16 Thread Anselm R Garbe
On 16 October 2011 18:30, Peter John Hartman wrote: > On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 12:13:03PM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Anselm R Garbe wrote: >> > Do we really agree that touch interfaces do suck less? > > I think there's a category error or something here.  Touch

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-16 Thread Kurt H Maier
On 10/16/11, Peter John Hartman <> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 12:13:03PM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Anselm R Garbe <> >> wrote: >> > Do we really agree that touch interfaces do suck less? > > I think there's a category error or something here. Touch inter

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-16 Thread Bjartur Thorlacius
First, docking is generally useful for panels. Dwm sucks as a status bar. Should the information displayed in the status bar not be properties on the root window to dwm? A panel can then keep track of _NET_NUMBER_OF_DESKTOPS = 2^(NUMBER_OF_TAGS)-1 (or just NUMBER_OF_TAGS) and perhaps the current la

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-16 Thread Kurt H Maier
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: > First, docking is generally useful for panels. Dwm sucks as a status > bar. Should the information displayed in the status bar not be > properties on the root window to dwm? A panel can then keep track of > _NET_NUMBER_OF_DESKTOPS = 2^(N

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-16 Thread Christoph Lohmann
Greetings comrades, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > I'm back from a longer vacation and take this patch under review to > think if it would fit into mainline dwm. it should be under review for a longer time, until the touch front is able to show some more results. Otherwise the general scepticism of the

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-17 Thread Bjartur Thorlacius
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote: > Panels are a part of a different interface paradigm.  dwm does not > have desktops.  This is another example of software that shouldn't be > crammed into dwm. > Yet dwm sports a half-assed status bar that works as an application launcher and

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-17 Thread Connor Lane Smith
On 17/10/2011, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: > a half-assed status bar that works as an application launcher dmenu != dwm cls

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-17 Thread Kurt H Maier
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:18 AM, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: > Yet dwm sports a half-assed status bar that works as an application > launcher and clock. This could be implemented more modularily by > XEmbedding... although it would probably wind more complicated than > necessary. dwm's status bar i

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-17 Thread Bjartur Thorlacius
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Connor Lane Smith wrote: > On 17/10/2011, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: > dmenu != dwm > Try clicking the title (selmon->bar IIRC). Wait for a terminal emulator to spawn.

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-17 Thread Kurt H Maier
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: > Try clicking the title (selmon->bar IIRC). Wait for a terminal > emulator to spawn. What? No. What code do you see that's supposed to do that? Did you put that into your config.h? -- # Kurt H Maier

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-17 Thread Connor Lane Smith
On 17/10/2011, Kurt H Maier wrote: > What? No. What code do you see that's supposed to do that? Did you > put that into your config.h? config.def.h:93 On 17/10/2011, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: > Try clicking the title (selmon->bar IIRC). Wait for a terminal > emulator to spawn. That's not ex

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-17 Thread Petr Sabata
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 09:08:04AM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Bjartur Thorlacius > wrote: > > Try clicking the title (selmon->bar IIRC). Wait for a terminal > > emulator to spawn. > > What? No. What code do you see that's supposed to do that? Did you > put th

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-17 Thread Peter John Hartman
> That's not exactly what I'd describe as an application launcher, but I > still don't understand what you're complaining about. If you want to > change dwm's status bar, customise your buttons[]. (And a clock? > That's just the root window title.) > > I'm really not convinced a generic status bar

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-17 Thread Robert Ransom
On 2011-10-16, Kurt H Maier wrote: > On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius > wrote: >> First, docking is generally useful for panels. Dwm sucks as a status >> bar. Should the information displayed in the status bar not be >> properties on the root window to dwm? A panel can then kee

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-17 Thread Connor Lane Smith
On 17/10/2011, Peter John Hartman wrote: > Not that I care about statusbars and dockbars--I just want dwm to play nice > with onscreen keyboards---I think, that said, that his point is that there's > no conceptual tension between dwm and a statusbar *since dwm has a > statusbar*. I agree, then. I

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-17 Thread Stephen Paul Weber
Somebody claiming to be Peter John Hartman wrote: I'm really not convinced a generic status bar would work better than dwm's does now. Not that I care about statusbars and dockbars--I just want dwm to play nice with onscreen keyboards---I think, that said, that his point is that there's no conc

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-17 Thread Bjartur Thorlacius
Connor Lane Smith wrote: > their status bar without a bunch of garish icons; text will suffice. Yes, but using fancy fonts. Thankfully, patching is possible. Thus my point is moot. Robert Pansom wrote: >I would think you'ld *like* setting _NET_NUMBER_OF_DESKTOPS to 2^10 by Or 2^9-1. But your point

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-17 Thread Bjartur Thorlacius
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Stephen Paul Weber wrote: > Isn't "docking" really just another layout?  One where most windows tile > below a window kept at the top/side? > Kinda, but it then it depends on recursive window management.

Re: [dev] [dwm] adding docking support

2011-10-17 Thread Kurt H Maier
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Petr Sabata wrote: > It's in the default dwm config, line 93... Woops. I guess I should probably glance at config.def.h once in a while. I must have removed that so long ago that it was lost in the mists of brain. -- # Kurt H Maier