Re: [wmii] Re: IntelliJ 5.1 and wmii-2.5.2

From: Anselm R. Garbe <>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:46:36 +0100

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:52:59AM +0100, Steffen Liebergeld wrote:
> Wmii should not try to handle broken applications if that would mean
> to break the good design. Nobody really wants to have lots of kludges
> and special cases in the code to handle different behaviour of
> programs. An example for software developed to keep application
> compatibility over ages is windows. And nobody would want to have crap
> like this.

Actually wmii should be that robust to not crash if a broken app
runs amok or does weird things.

Another question is about MWMH and EWMH support. wmii already
has partial EWMH support for setting the desktop number
correctly. But it is questionable how far one could and should
support those specifications, because they contain arbitrary
crap invented by the KDE/Gnome/Xfce front to aim Windows and OSX
behavior completely (and even extending it). I think if we can
live without special hints, we should not support them, as long
as apps work in floating area at least. Otherwise we implement
unnecessary code which is executed very rare.

> @garbeam: Will there be a max layout in next snap again? I'm only
> asking because I didn't hear a clear statement about it.

Dunno if it will be in next snap, but at least within one of
next snaps. The 9P integration is finished already and I merged
wmiikeys and wmiibar into the WM - this means we have only
one 9P server - wmii itself. To the 9P client world this is
transparent, to the WM this has some advantages (lesser code and
use of symbiotic effects such as key handling in one area,
knowledge about geometry of wmii-related windows like the bar
without doing nasty synchronization stuff).

In the end we are around 6.5kSLOC again (inlcuding all libs).


 Anselm R. Garbe  ><><  ><><  GPG key: 0D73F361
Received on Fri Feb 10 2006 - 09:46:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:00:00 UTC