Re: [wmii] multitags

For what it's worth... I use multitagging constantly (now that I know how
to use it). I have found it particularly useful in situations with "low
screen real estate". For example, I'll have a IDE open with code tagged as
"code" (for lack of anything creative). I'll have terminal open while ssh'd
into an external machine (where the code is being deployed) tagged with that
foreign machine's hostname so that I can run commands, etc. And I have a
second terminal open, ssh'd to the foreign machine and "tail -f"-ing the
appropriate logfile. This second terminal is tagged with both "code" and
"`hostname`" - so that I can watch the logs while deploying or running
commands on the other machine without ever having to switch views. The tiny
little monitor that they provided at the office really doesn't allow me to
have all three windows open and useable.

It's also nice for situations with, say, an IRC client open in multiple
views... one view "dedicated" a web browser, another view for mail and a
third view for whatever else. But the IRC client or Instant Message client
(in my case - centericq - since the internal RSS support is sweet) is always
visible so you can monitor.

Bill

On 4/7/06, redondos <redondos_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 07 20:22, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I used the recent version for at least several weeks and noticed
> > that I never need any client containing more than a single tag.
> >
> > But handling stuff like 1+2+foobar in .../<client>/tags file,
> > means several overhead (for those who are familiar with the wmii
> > source code, the Frame struct has been invented esp. for this
> > reason). In other words, this overhead means several hundred
> > lines of code.
> >
> > Thus I propose, to only allow a tag per client. This would
> > result in something like a (it is really a superset if you think
> > further about it) workspace-alike approach, though it is more
> > simple than workspace handling, and we got already all
> > mechanisms to run specific classes/instances of clients in
> > specific tags. The overall concept won't change, except
> > disallowing tagging a client with more than one tag, and the
> > removal of * tag.
> >
> > I know that this is somewhat like the ws-approach, but I see no
> > need for the special complexity...
> >
> > Any concerns removing that?
>
> I'm sure this thread will become pretty long. Many people will dislike
> the removal of the multitag behavior.
>
> As for myself, I never got used to tagging a client with more than one
> tag, anyway, so I wouldn't be affected by this change.
>
> --
> redondos
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wmii_AT_wmii.de mailing list
> http://wmii.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wmii
>
>
>
Received on Fri Apr 07 2006 - 20:56:28 UTC