Re: [wmx] Why I use wmx (fwd)

> 
> >I am not alone! heh...
> >
> >my problem with the source is that I am unfortunately not as versed as I
> >would like to be in c++... ripping apart the source is kinda hairy
> >then...
> 
> The reason I'm attempting this Gnome version of wm2 is to practise my C++...
> even though my college is only teaching Java now (!?).

hmm... java port of wmx... nah... :)

> >But if it can be agreed that this is a worthwile contribution to the wmx
> >source pool, then I imagine I can find the motivation to implement it.
> >(self motivation somewhat lacking today) 
> 
>  Although initially I didn't see the point of your suggestion, the more I think
> about it the more it makes sense. I don't really read the titlebars of windows 
> to find out which one to switch to, I just look at the contents of the window. 
> Maybe you should leave a 1-pixel border around the frameless windows so they 
> don't look completely "lost"?
>  If you #ifdef the changes, there won't be any performance loss for people who
> don't want this feature. Any chance you could ad it to wm2 as well as wmx?

if your interested, I shall begin harming myself mentally with the code
immediately. :)

> >the gnome compliance stuff circulating on the list lately is a neat idea,
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> >though I doubt that I would personally use it more than once ever... even
> >then merely out of curiosity rather than necessity. 
> 
> Oh well. At least I'll use it.

doh.. don't thing I was ripping up the idea, I think it's kinda neat. In
the process you might end up doing more work than you had bargained for
however... most of the structure necessary just isn't there.

I am only so pessimistic about it because my own blinding ideals disallow
me from seeing anything else. There may just be some features that I would
use quite frequently. However, in all the times that I have used
enlightenment + gnome, I have always felt like I was doing a triathalon in
a frilly dress... (not quite the dressing I want for the job) but using
wmx ideals (which may or may not ((prolly not)) mirror my own) and the
advantages of gnome compliance perhaps there are some features that I
overlooked in my hasty retreat from the frilly neon window manager
concept.

> >I can't imagine what
> >benefits that gnome compliance would offer beyond channel switching. and
> >the current method is more than adequate (IMHO -again I spout my
> >righteousness, feel free to topple me from my all-holy alter)
> 
> Excuse me hijacking this thread to go on about my Gnome compliance project :>

np... :)

>  There are a few annoying things about using wm2 with Gnome. Most have to do
> with the file manager (gmc). gmc creates icons on the desktop using little
> undecorated windows. wm2 doesn't recognise Motif window hints, so it gives the
> icons frames and titlebars. Ugly. Also, Gnome has a system for proxying root
> window clicks so that the wm can pass them on to other apps if it doesn't
> want them - for example gmc uses right clicks on the root window to call up a 
> root menu. wm2 doesn't use right clicks for anything very useful. This just 
> needs a quick hack to Buttons.C to remove the "flipping" behaviour and a 
> couple of lines added to Manager.C to set up a proxy window, but I haven't got 
> it working yet. My Xlib programming book is on its way...
> 
>  The other problem is session management. I want Gnomified wm2 to use the
> Gnome session to store window states (position, size, layer, hidden/unhidden)
> so that when you exit a Gnome session and come back in your apps restart in
> the right place.

I though about that when you first mentioned gnome compliance. But, I
didn't think session management was such a big deal.

I never really had a use for this stuff and as a result may not value it
as highly. I leave my machine on. That is the best session management you
can have. :)

having thought about it and realizing that not everyone can afford to do
the same, perhaps there is more value to the session management than I had
at first thought..

though it still isn't many more steps than my previous shell scripties...
just add a xwininfo to it and some sed hack and slashing and viola!
session management ala bash... but i digress...

>  Channel switching is outside the scope of my project for the moment - I've
> decided to use wm2 as a base rather than wmx because the code is simpler.
> Making the Gnome pager work with wmx channels looks like a big job - too big
> for me anyway.

Is this how multiple desktops are handled in other wm's as well? I don't
muck around in to much wm source and thought that this was a weird way of
handling desktops.

>  I think it should be possible to use GTK+, the windowing toolkit used by most
> (if not all) Gnome apps, to draw the window list. This would have the 
> advantage of giving the wm2 menu and the Gnome menus the same "look and feel"
> (they would share fonts and background colours). I don't think this would 
> require any extra memory, because Gnome loads the GTK+ libraries for its own 
> menus anyway. However, I don't know that this is true. Can anyone tell me?

AFAIK it wouldn't use any more memory.

>  There's also the argument "if it ain't broke don't fix it", and I don't know
> if consistent look and feel is an important enough issue to justify rewriting
> perfectly good menu code.
> 

I think that in this case it comes down to whether or not you have enough
time and boredom (passion) to do it... I don't think there is a loss one
way or another...

>  I use wm2 because it appeals to my sense of tidiness. It hardly has any 
> unnecessary features and it hardly lacks any necessary features. Its looks are
> stylish rather than fashionable.
> 
>  If I was using plain X, wm2 would probably be the ideal wm, but to make it 
> useful in Gnome I need to add a little bit of fat, perhaps too much to make 
> Gnomified wm2 a true heir to wm2/wmx.
> 
> 
>  - Michael Rogers
> 


/me is sorry for yapping so much on the list... but he's bored. :)