Re: Bar going away? (was: Re: [wmii] Re: wmii-4 fs proposal/discussion)

On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 03:17:22AM -0400, Kris Maglione wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:09:43AM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
>>On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 03:26:56AM +0200, Uriel wrote:
>>>An external app could provide pretty much the current bar
>>>functionality if anyone wants it, something like winwatch(1) but for
>>>pages might make sense.
>>
>>The bar should be internal to prevent adding bunch of
>>synchronization complexity to not overlap the bar all the
>>time... Also, I doubt the sense of having a bar with a 9P
>>interface as external app, that would add also much complexity
>>which seems totally unnecessary. The bar-(re)internalization was
>>the correct decision. larswm, ion3, *box and many other WMs
>>using a bar prove that.
>There's also Fvwm with it's external... just about everything. They have to
>be started by fvwm, but they're separate processes. I'd use Fvwm before any
>blackbox derivative and possibly even before ion3.

Sorry, it's late. Anyway, the original post was about a patch. I think uriel
meant that it would make more sense to just write an external bar than to
write the patch. I happen to disagree and would more likely write the patch
than an external bar, mainly for the archetecture that's already present in
wmii.

-- 
Kris Maglione
Nothing difficult is ever easy.  -Steve Falco