Re: [wmii] summary of some #wmii talk on 2006-03-02

From: Uriel <>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 13:57:54 +0100

To be honest, I don't understand what the hell you are talking about
(and why do you keep bringing up maxed clients? uhu? that is totally
irrelevant and should work the same)

It is _very_ simple:

When a new client comes up, the exclusive bit allows the wm to do _the
right thing_ right away: user interaction 0.

When all the clients in a column are gone, it allows the wm to do the
right thing: user interaction 0.

The exclusive flag rules are simple, clearly defined, and avoid lots
of tedious work to the user. So what is the problem?!? (Aside of the
col size preservation, which is certainly not a common case, and that
can be easily handled, and which is a non-issue because growing of
cols should be easy anyway)

As for simplicity, the model without exclusive flag requires: two
extra operations (create/delete col) and an extra bar that wastes
space, and makes user interaction much more tedious. So it is clearly
more complex.

Also it allows larswm-style layout management, which is the simplest
possible dynamic layout (of course larswm-layout has never been
properly implemented in any wmii version, which IMHO is really sad
because it's not hard at all)


On 3/3/06, Anselm R. Garbe <> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 12:04:04PM +0100, Uriel wrote:
> > Most of that crap should be gone in wmii-3, and what are arguing here
> > about removing more operations(create/delete col, and all that other
> > crap.) Which would certainly simplify things while making them more
> > dynamic.
> There is no difference to create a column explicitely or to set
> a column exclusive which will have the effect to create a new
> column. In both ways you got one interaction point.
> If you always work with two columns (like me), because your
> resolution (mine is 1400x1050) is too small to allow three
> columns, you have in exclusive columns 1 interaction to move a
> client from the adjacent column to the exclusive column, in
> non-exclusive columns you simply got maximize (1 interaction).
> In both cases ([non-]exclusive column) you have 1 interaction to
> send a client to a different column, though in a exclusive column
> this might have the side-effect, that a client is pushed out in
> non-exclusive columns this might have the side-effect that the
> column remains empty. Thus no difference in amount of interaction
> points.
> If you kill the client in an exclusive column, this might have
> the effect that wether the column itself or an adjacent column
> is destroyed (predictability here would need a defined behavior
> which col disappears in such a case?). If a column gets
> destroyed, your complete ws is rearranged. In a non-exclusive
> column you might stick with a remaining empty column, but the
> overall layout is kept. Now, to rearrange your environment to
> two columns with a different width would make additional
> interactions necessary in a exclusive column, though this might
> not be an issue if one is ok with the default widths (50%/50%
> with two cols). In an non-exclusive column you have not todo
> anything, unless you really want to get rid of the column. The
> whole point appears also on attach in the opposite direction,
> exclusive columns might create a new column pushing the existing
> or new client into it (must be defined). In a non-exclusive
> column it is totally predictable where a new client is attached
> (like in acme). So there are differences, both have pros and
> cons for the specific way.
> In both cases you have 2 interactions to navigate right-
> respectively leftwards. No difference.
> In non-exclusive case you have to explicitely destroy a column,
> in exclusive it is done implicitely. This is the only case where
> the exclusive column has lesser interaction points than the
> non-exclusive.
> Assumed that you have the same features in both cases per
> column, which means stacked, equalized and maximized
> arrangements of clients, the exclusive column concept is much
> more complex with to few benefit and the drawback to restore
> column widths. It is even lesser predictable. And simplicity
> wins.
> Also, some in IRC and me tried both concepts already, and most
> of them agreed that column layout feels very clunky with
> exclusive columns. It is just a question of being used to it
> already or not. It is not a question of less or more dynamic
> features.
> Regards,
> --
> Anselm R. Garbe ><>< ><>< GPG key: 0D73F361
> _______________________________________________
> mailing list
Received on Fri Mar 03 2006 - 13:57:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:00:38 UTC