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

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!