Re: [dev] [dwm] drop the bars (was: systray in upstream dwm?)

On 10 April 2012 22:11, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: > I'm still in favor of separating tiling from tagging, so you could > e.g. use dwm's grid with 2wm's dual-stack without having to hand-merge > patches because          the dwm patch references context not present in the > stereo window manager. >

Re: [dev] [dwm] drop the bars (was: systray in upstream dwm?)

On 6 April 2012 07:41, Jan Christoph Ebersbach wrote: > Thank you Anselm for explaining the issue. From my point of view there > is no other way of implementing a proper systray for dwm as long as it > contains the bars and has no interface. > > Why don't we drop the bars and keybindings and let s

Re: [dev] [dwm] drop the bars (was: systray in upstream dwm?)

On 4/10/12, Jan Christoph Ebersbach wrote: > Sounds interesting but since there is no way of communicating with dwm we > wouldn't gain much. The code for bars and keybindings would also stay. I'm > rather for going the whole way. > Yeah, dwm would still have to draw tag names/icons itself. But do

RE: [dev] [dwm] drop the bars (was: systray in upstream dwm?)

Hi, -Original message- > From:Bjartur Thorlacius > Sent: Tue 10-Apr-2012 12:09 > To: dev mail list > Subject: Re: [dev] [dwm] drop the bars (was: systray in upstream dwm?) > > On Saturday 07 April 2012 12:13:43 Jan Christoph Ebersbach wrote: > > I wonder how t

Re: [dev] [dwm] drop the bars (was: systray in upstream dwm?)

DockApps :) yay On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 6:04 AM, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: > On Saturday 07 April 2012 12:13:43 Jan Christoph Ebersbach wrote: >> I wonder how these kind of patches can be done in a better way. It's clear >> that including a systray in dwm is not a good idea but it is also not >>

Re: [dev] [dwm] drop the bars (was: systray in upstream dwm?)

On Saturday 07 April 2012 12:13:43 Jan Christoph Ebersbach wrote: > I wonder how these kind of patches can be done in a better way. It's clear > that including a systray in dwm is not a good idea but it is also not > possible to work around the bar included in dwm. I want to see the mode my > tag i

Re: [dev] [dwm] drop the bars (was: systray in upstream dwm?)

this might be a bad idea but, the window manager could set an X prop of an array(tag) of arrays(wids) and there could be another app that reads this property and exposes the info in a friendly way so that something else can display the info any way it wants. without having to deal with the content

Re: [dev] [dwm] drop the bars (was: systray in upstream dwm?)

On 7 April 2012 14:35, Lee Fallat wrote: >> Xft and Systray would be implemented by a separate program and all the >> fruitless discussions about the visual stuff, would come to an end. > > > This sounds like a wonderful solution, but I can't see how dwm's status bar > can be implemented via somet

Re: [dev] [dwm] drop the bars (was: systray in upstream dwm?)

> > Xft and Systray would be implemented by a separate program and all the > fruitless discussions about the visual stuff, would come to an end. > This sounds like a wonderful solution, but I can't see how dwm's status bar can be implemented via something like dzen...Things like the current window

Re: [dev] [dwm] drop the bars (was: systray in upstream dwm?)

Somebody claiming to be Luis Anaya wrote: I see the case for a need of a systray, but there are tiling window managers that provide this facility. Also, nice programs like stalonetray which one can run if one needs a systray. -- Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma See for

RE: [dev] [dwm] drop the bars (was: systray in upstream dwm?)

bject: RE: [dev] [dwm] drop the bars (was: systray in upstream dwm?) Hi: I see the case for a need of a systray, but there are tiling window managers that provide this facility. The "awesome" window manager does have systray capability fairly small footprint, something to consider.  D

RE: [dev] [dwm] drop the bars (was: systray in upstream dwm?)

Hi: I see the case for a need of a systray, but there are tiling window managers that provide this facility. The "awesome" window manager does have systray capability fairly small footprint, something to consider. Dwm is meant to be minimal and it is embedded in its design philosophy and bein

Re: [dev] [dwm] drop the bars (was: systray in upstream dwm?)

On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 07:41:56AM +0200, Jan Christoph Ebersbach wrote: > Why don't we drop the bars and keybindings and let separate programs > handle it. Because then dwm would have to have a custom protocol to describe tag state to panels, which would then presumably have to poll an interface

Re: [dev] [dwm] drop the bars (was: systray in upstream dwm?)

On 04/06/2012 07:41 AM, Jan Christoph Ebersbach wrote: Good Friday, Thank you Anselm for explaining the issue. From my point of view there is no other way of implementing a proper systray for dwm as long as it contains the bars and has no interface. Why don't we drop the bars and keybindings an

[dev] [dwm] drop the bars (was: systray in upstream dwm?)

Good Friday, Thank you Anselm for explaining the issue. From my point of view there is no other way of implementing a proper systray for dwm as long as it contains the bars and has no interface. Why don't we drop the bars and keybindings and let separate programs handle it. There are also other p