On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Marco Martin <notm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I was looking at some systray-related bugs, such as
> and it occurs to me they always have in common the same reason: even
> if I tried hard in the rewrite to make it less a "special case", it
> still is just that: a "special case" (ever having allowed plasmoids in
> the systray a long time ago in 2009 is still on of the design
> decisions i mostly regret but that's another story)
> what I'm thinking of, is having a new possible formFactor() value,
> IndicatorArea (why exactly FormFactor?because it's exactly that, while
> Horizontal means "can grow horizontally, constrained vertically, that
> would mean constrained both horizontally and vertically)
It's a bug in that weather applet that it's rendering outside the area it
actually has - and that needs fixing anyway.
Introducing a new form factor won't solve that - in both cases you have to
do the exact same amount of work to that applet.
> So in that case applets would need to make sure to be square in that
> particular formfactor, like the weather that wants to eventually
> become non square in panels (and no, i don't want to allow non square
> icons in the systray.. ever)
> another difference would be (and that is kindof an hack, but at least
> it puts that immutability hack there and only there) containments of
> IndicatorArea formfactor would have a Mutable immutability°, because
> the systray itself should always be able to both add and remove
> plasmoids in itself even when immutable (even Systemimmutable) it
> could still hide/disable the ui to do so when immutable, but must be
> programmatically able to do so.
365618 and 365569 <https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365569> are
basically the same thing right?
You're saying we need mutability to be different in system tray containment
compared to it's parent. Sounds fine. +1
But I don't see why we would tie that to the formFactor.
Semantically they're not remotely related, the only link is that the system
tray happens to need both.
> Unfortunately as it needs changes in plasma-framework it would need to
> be a post 5.8 thing (how to properly fix 365618 in 5.8 I have no idea,
> except perhaps the systray applet itself trying to temporarly unlock
> plasma when it has to remove widgets, that would still be broken in
> systemimmutable case, but better than nothing)
> opinions? comments?
I don't object to the idea in principle, but the reasons you've listed here
don't support it.
> Marco Martin