Your hurt-shins argument convinces me, someone who's new to the OSS world and
could use all the consistency he can get! I can't see anything on the horizon
that would warrant leaving extra space in the message, and the worst-case
scenario (we'll have to add another client message later) isn't that bad. So
32-bit all around?
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 07:04:32PM -0500, Dana Jansens wrote:
>> On 3/4/08, Nathaniel Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 06:55:25PM -0800, Grant Patterson wrote:
>>> > Dana Jansens wrote:
>>> > >There are no other data.l[] elements, only 5. That said, the data.s[]
>>> > > elements should be more than enough and allow for more things to be
>>> > > added in the future, but I realize every other hint exclusively uses
>>> > > data.l[]. Anyone else have an opinion about this?
>>> > >
>>> > I like the idea of using the 16-bit elements so there's room for
>>> expansion.
>>> > While I can't see any reason for this now, there might be some flags an
>>> app
>>> > would want to set to further define window manager behavior. Changed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, please don't, there are enough bizarre and surprising
>>> inconsistencies in the X world as it is. (And this would require a
>>> whole new special case in at least my code.)
>>>
>>> If you want future expandability, without using a new atom, then do it
>>> properly -- mark some fields as "if this field is non-zero, then
>>> discard the event" and some as "if this field is non-zero, then
>>> pretend the field is zero anyway", all that complex cruft.
>>> Alternatively, just accept that the way we do future expansion is by
>>> adding a new, extended atom, a la _NET_WM_STRUT{,_PARTIAL}...
>> This change was for the client message, which cannot be expanded in
>> the future. The property itself would remain CARDINAL 32bit typed.
>
> Yes, that is one of the inconsistencies I was referring to. (The
> other is that every other message in the spec uses format=32.)
>
>> It sounds to me like you misunderstood what was being made 16bit
>> fields.
>
> I don't *think* I did, and nothing you've said has made me think
> otherwise? I am using "expandability" in the general sense of "adding
> new capabilities to the spec", not in the narrow sense of "adding more
> bytes at the end of a property".
>
> Ultimately either approach works, of course, and I don't expect my
> having to write extra code in my event handling routine[1] to weigh
> *very* heavily on others (though it does seem to be the only data
> point being advanced ATM). But someone has to speak up in the name of
> taste and consistency; it's not like X has such an abundance of it to
> spare. (At the very least, if we do make it a 16-bit message
> can we put a capital-letter warning in the spec pointing this out?
> Implementors are just going to bark their shins on it otherwise, and
> setting people up for hurt shins seems mean to me.)
>
> [1] The code I have now can only handle client messages with format 32
> because, well, that's the only sort of client message that actually
> exists in the wild ATM.
>
> -- Nathaniel
>
_______________________________________________
wm-spec-list mailing list
wm-spec-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list
