Re: [dwm] considering Xresources as dwm configuration like larswm

On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 02:58:49PM +0200, Julian Romero wrote:
> On 7/21/06, Steffen Liebergeld <stepardo_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >On 7/20/06, Anselm R. Garbe <arg_AT_10kloc.org> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 05:46:10PM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> >> > Actually I consider using Xrm as dwm configuration mechanism...
> >> > (even if I hate it).
> >> >
> >> > I will think about it until tomorrow. Command line options are
> >> > no alternative, because we cannot define rules with command line
> >> > args...
> >>
>
> Thinking out loud, I like telnet interface as configuration mechanism.
> You telnet localhost:3113 (or whatever port) and just type a rule:
>
> $ telnet localhost:3113
> dwm>rule .*thunderbird.*, mail, tile
> dwm>rule .*biff.*, mail, float
> dwm>rulex .*ie.*, windows, tile
> Opps, do you need a rest?
> dwm>bye
>
> Another way could be to use stdin for both status and rules.

I considered re-using stdin as well, but in any case having
customization features will lead to more code, esp. more
only-once executed code, that's why I don't like either way
much... And it doesn't keeps the novices away.

> In both cases the parser will be miminal. I don't know about
> the size of a mini-telnet daemon.

Either way will make at least 300 LOC of additional lines at
least (and the Xrm stuff would be the most simple, because that
is already implementd by Xlib).

However, why bothering with yet another syntax? Customize the C
code and go with it. Especially because dwm will be finished
very soon and not change that much.

Also, this is Unix, and orginally software was intended to be
compiled in the Unix world, so what's the problem?

Regards,

-- 
 Anselm R. Garbe  ><><  www.ebrag.de  ><><  GPG key: 0D73F361