Re: [wmii] wmii-4 fs proposal/discussion

From: Kris Maglione <>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 03:25:27 -0400

On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:18:19AM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:28:51PM -0400, Kris Maglione wrote:
>> I've got a few other problems, though. First, we shouldn't think of clients
>> in columns having a width so much as columns having widths. I think that
>> tags should have a file containing the widths of each column which should
>> perhapps be writable. Either way, we'd change the width of columns in the
>> coltrol file, not clients (floating clients excepted, of course).
>The column width can be the second argument of a line in the
>index file:
I could live with this but I still don't like it. See below.

>~|ncol width clientid ...\n
>I don't agree with any exception for floating clients. We have
>move [+|-]<x> [+|-]<y> and resize [+|-]<w> [+|-]<h> as commands
>for clients in wmii-4. That works with both (floating and
>managed clients). The move might be ignored for managed clients.
I absolutely disagree and I've thought the current behaviour has been broken
from the start. I don't like to think as columns as a bunch of clients and I
don't like to have to pick some random client when I want to resize a column.
If anything, I'd set the height by client, but certainly not the width.

>> As for adjusting height, that's another issue that's heavily entangled with
>> the new colmodes. I can think of two ways of dealing with it. One is to
>> group clients into associations with visible frames, with n frames existing
>> at once and 1 visible at a time. There would be a group file containing
>> lines as: "<group no> <visible client> <height> <title>" and perhaps a
>> boolean of whether to show 1 or all title bars. The other would be to give
>> the index file "<col|~> <client #> <height>". Floating clients would have
>> x, y, w and h in the index file either way.
>No, just one syntax for all. What's the problem to also list
>x,y,w,h for managed clients? I see no problem.
>> It would be nice to read a brain dump of all that's currently known or
>> decided about the n clients per column change because I'm trying to deal
>> with something that's still somewhat amorpus in my mind.
>Also note, that we already decided how to replace the column
>modes, see the TODO. However I think having a command for the
>view namespace to set n visible clients for the current column
>is no big deal.
Just to clarify, who's we? In every discussion I've participated in on IRC,
the proposal in the TODO is universally disliked.

I can think of several ways of achieving the effect of multiple collapsed
clients and the one in the TODO is the one that I like least of them all. I'd
be *much* more comfortable just being to collapse a client to 0 height and
being able to split the height of a client with the one above or below it. It
seems to me that the suggested behaviour, on the other hand would be, though
simple, absolutely unbearable.

Kris Maglione
How exciting to see you in traction again!
Received on Mon Jun 12 2006 - 09:26:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Jul 13 2008 - 16:09:00 UTC