Re: [dev] [surf] xprop (was: few bugs)

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 08:39:51PM +0100, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:04:57 +0100
> Tadeusz Sośnierz <tadzikes_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 29-10-2009 19:59:17, markus schnalke wrote:
> > > Surf is able to interface all kinds of programs through xprop, but
> > > not in an easy/flexible enough way. The large number of user
> > > scripts that extend uzbl is not the result of the larger community,
> > > but the result of the interface that makes you want to write
> > > ``handler'' scripts.
> > >
> > > Instead of staying hooked to xprop, surf should create a fifo for
> > > input and write stuff to stdout in order to make it easier/more
> > > flexible to combine it with helper scripts. This would improve surf
> > > much.
> > >
> > > Here (possibly) more code leads to less complexity combined with
> > > more flexibility.
> > >
> > >
> > > It's not enough to just offer possibilities; important is to
> > > encourage to use them ... by design. In this point surf fails,
> > > whereas uzbl does it right.
> > >
> > >
> > > meillo
> >
> > Agreed. As now the looks like the only place in which surf uses xprop
> > is actually this uri and find handling. It's not really useful for
> > setting the address remotely, as we have better or worse patches for
> > bookmarks, we can open new surf instances in tabbed, etc.
> > Regards,
> > Ted
> >
>
> i always think of 'uzbl & surf' as 'wmii and dwm'.
>
> basically they both encourage you to write things to interact/integrate
> with, but wmii and uzbl recommend doing it with separate programs by
> providing interfaces such as fifo/socket/virtual filesystem etc.
>
> whereas dwm and surf recommend you to change the source code to provide
> the behaviour you want.
>
> both are fine approach, both have pros and cons and both appeal to
> different people.
> but IMHO they both provide a means to change the behavior of the program
> as a whole
>
> (note i haven't actually looked at surf's source code yet, but i
> suspect that's how it works)
>
> Dieter
>
>
How long is the spawn function in surf?
I'd say ~ less than two weeks in tip and not yet in stable.
So it seems normal that it doesn't give yet a lot of script,
let's see how it will be later.

Before the spawn function was in surf, it was harder.
But now I can clean all the crapy scripts I had for surf.
Don't have to launch surf with -x anymore just to make it write his id
somewhere until I get it in a cumbersome way.

Just have to use the spawn function with the winid argument
or the xprop when I need it.

It is as simple as :
#define ADDBMK { .v = (char *[]){ "/bin/sh", "-c", \
        "bookmark $0", winid, NULL } }

    { MODKEY, GDK_b, spawn, ADDBMK },

If I need the id in my sh script, $1 in the script gives it to me,
whatever surf window I have launched the script from.

For more complex task, I understand that one wishes also other interface
but I'm also sure that the actual possibility aren't fully exploited yet.
Received on Thu Oct 29 2009 - 21:45:36 UTC