Hi, I don't think the pager could set the FULLSCREEN_MONITORS property directly. There can be only one client (app or WM) able to modify a property at a time, IMO. If we want pagers to be able to change this, we should use the client message, or it's just asking for race conditions and even infinite loops.
Look at the _NET_WM_NAME example as you mention. _NET_WM_NAME is defined as what the _app_ requested, so any non-app client changing it is just wrong. In fact, we have a property _NET_WM_VISIBLE_NAME for exactly this reason, because we distinguish the state (_NET_WM_VISIBLE_NAME) from the app's request (_NET_WM_NAME). We had to add VISIBLE_NAME because people end up wanting to know not only what was requested, but what the WM did. Geometry is not a full substitute because it's a separate state from FULLSCREEN_MONITORS, much as STATE_FULLSCREEN itself (or maximized or minimized) are separate states from geometry (even though they affect geometry). An example of why it's a separate state is that a FULLSCREEN_MONITORS state exists even when the window is not in fact fullscreen. If for example I had a FULLSCREEN_MONITORS UI in the pager, it would be legitimate to allow setting the FULLSCREEN_MONITORS for a movie app, even when that app was not in fullscreen mode at the time. And to have a UI I need to know the current state. In theory, a WM could also use a not-exactly-the-same-size-as-the-monitor geometry for a fullscreen app. For example I think it would be legitimate to have some kind of border or toolbar even in fullscreen mode, if a WM really felt like it, or legitimate to honor the size increment (grid) hints of something like a terminal app even in fullscreen mode. As you say the app (or pager) should always adapt to the geometry it gets, but that is for geometry-related matters. For any app or pager UI that displayed or allowed you to edit FULLSCREEN_MONITORS, it would be wrong to use the geometry; instead, the FULLSCREEN_MONITORS values should be used, since that state will exist even when the geometry does not match it, due to e.g. not being in fullscreen state, or just some strange WM policy. The request+state-property approach is a superset of a just-a-property approach that allows several additional things to work right, if those things ever come up. That makes it more future-safe. It seems to have little downside to do things in a more future-safe way. If we don't do request+state-property, then down the line we might end up adding the equivalent of _NET_WM_VISIBLE_NAME, something like _NET_WM_ACTUAL_FULLSCREEN_MONITORS. Havoc _______________________________________________ wm-spec-list mailing list wm-spec-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list
