On Friday 28 April 2006 18:17, Sasha Vasko wrote: > >>>An X app might open a grid of top-level windows, and rearrange them > >>>as more windows are added or removed. > >> > >>No application should ever rely on being able to do that. > > > > I completely disagree with this statement. Applications *should* be able > > to rely cooperating with the window manager when placing windows in a > > grid or some other arrangement on the screen. SDI style apps like the > > GIMP and those found on Mac OS X would be cumbersome to use (at best) > > without some kind of app<->wm cooperation about how and where multiple > > toplevel windows should be placed. > > And exactly why is that? Client maps a window of specific size, and WM > decides where to place it. WM implements policies that specific user > likes and thus it is better suited, then the client app of chosing the > best possible location for the window. Why does a client needs to > concern itself with its position even if it has several top level > windows??? Is it like : "Oh No! If My Windows ain't adjucent I Ain't > gonna draw no nothing!!!"
You're taking this a bit to the extreme. Consider the possibilty that the WM author is not omnipotent, and the user runs a new client that it has never seen and knows nothing about. According to what you are saying, the application programmer is stupid and should not have the possibility of telling the window manager how its various top-level windows should be spatially arranged. > >>Yes, that is what I'm saying - user (via window manager configuration) > >>determines how windows are placed. Not the client application. > > > > Requiring the *user* to configure the wm on how to place every single > > toplevel window the app opens is unacceptable. The application knows best > > how various toplevel windows relate to each other and it should be easy > > to allow the app to provide acceptable defaults for the user. If the wm > > makes this impossible, then the wm is broken. > > Yeah SURE! Any application is dumb and knows nothing about what > particular user really wants. Of course, because we're just writing software for the user because all the bus-driver jobs were taken. I don't know what I'm doing, and I need someone else to tell me how to do it. But seriously, comments like this (including mine) are insulting and childish. If you don't want to implement the proposed functionality in your window manager, then don't implement it. But *don't* flame those of us that understand the issue and want better cooperation between the WM and the application. > > Indeed. We get bit by this all the time. Things that are trivial on > > Windows and Mac OS X are difficult and often impossible to do on X11 > > because of the "the WM knows best" mentality. > > Whats so complicated about observing a clear separation of > responcibilities anyways? Window manager manages desktop, clients manage > their own contents. [snip] > So apps should tame their feeling of self-importance and mind their own > rectangular area of the screen real estate. [snip] > Well, frustration is always caused by a feeling of self-importance. Personal attacks are really not needed here. The separation of responsibilities is not as clear as you would have it. I've written a fair amount of WM, toolkit, and client code, and I can honestly say that there are many times where I see an overlap of functionality. We're supposed to be cooperating... > Someone who's accepted the world around himself as it is, and its fate > in it, will never get frustrated, but marvel at the beauty of it. So, > frustrated people should not work on amending specs, but on accepting > that our life is too short, the death is stalking us every moment of it, > that nothing is more important then anything else, and we should be > gratefull for what we already have and humbly accept our path. ... not flaming people for trying to solve a problem. > That said, there will be no meaningful revolt in X, unless X specs drops > redirecting ConfigureRequests to window managers, which is a whole > different story. Revolt was obviously the wrong choice of word on my part. I apologize for using the word. My point was that when things aren't good enough, they tend to change. This is how the EWMH spec arose. If we don't continue to adapt and improve the cooperation, we'll probably see yet another spec in the future. -- Bradley T. Hughes - bhughes at trolltech.com Trolltech AS - Sandakervn. 116, P.O. Box 4332 Nydalen, 0402 Oslo, Norway _______________________________________________ wm-spec-list mailing list wm-spec-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list
