Re: [wmii] suggestions for the sanitizing of swapping

On 5/6/06, Uriel <lost.goblin_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> You guys are wasting your time, larswm already got swapping and
> cycling(which is even more important) right many years ago, but Im not
> even sure garbeam ever learned to use cycling in larswm, no wonder it
> has never worked in wmi(i), but it was one of the greatest larswm
> features.

I've used larswm for quite some time and I agree that swapping was
very useful there. That does not mean that it can be copied to wmii
"as is" however. There's a fundamental difference between larswm and
wmii: in wmii neither the amount of columns, nor the amount of clients
per column is fixed. The reason swapping is simple in larswm is that
is has only two columns, of which the left one cannot contain more
than one client. Under those circumstances it is very easy to tell
where a client should go on swap: to the left "maxcol" if that's not
where it is, or to the top of the track if it was in the "maxcol". Due
to wmii's more general column layout (which allows much more
flexibilty), the decision of what client to swap with is more complex.
>From my pov, as I already explained yesterday, swapping doesn't really
fit in the wmii approach, hence I'd personally like to see it removed.
However, if it is to stay, it should better work _predictable_, which
it doesn't right now; I'm not trying to reinvent any wheels here, just
to adapt them so they fit on the wmii vehicle a bit better :-)

Greetings, Sander.
Received on Sat May 06 2006 - 17:52:58 UTC