Re: Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Sayamindu Dasgupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From what I gathered from my experiments, I think it makes sense for us to go with Metacity + maximus. That would require no code changes in metacity and minor changes in sugar. If we want to support activity icons though, we would probably require some more code changes in sugar. Something that I wonder about the maximus approach... If you maximize the window when it's already mapped, won't you get a visible redraw? The advantage of the maximus approach to me is that you get applications like firefox to run fullscreen without code changes. Though stuff like gimp or the gnome calculator (try to maximize it on your desktop) will break. Marco ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Albert Cahalan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Sayamindu Dasgupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From what I gathered from my experiments, I think it makes sense for us to go with Metacity + maximus. That would require no code changes in metacity and minor changes in sugar. If we want to support activity icons though, we would probably require some more code changes in sugar. Maximus won't handle the gimp AFAIK. Can't regular activities just ask to be maximized and/or ask to be the same size as the screen? The common Python libraries could do this. They can, but: * We will make non python activities authors life harder. (would be solved on the long time when we implement the library in C with python bindings) * Applications like firefox gets displayed like normal windows with decorations, which is suboptimal. Marco ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Sayamindu Dasgupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From what I gathered from my experiments, I think it makes sense for us to go with Metacity + maximus. That would require no code changes in metacity and minor changes in sugar. If we want to support activity icons though, we would probably require some more code changes in sugar. Something that I wonder about the maximus approach... If you maximize the window when it's already mapped, won't you get a visible redraw? The advantage of the maximus approach to me is that you get applications like firefox to run fullscreen without code changes. for firefox, wouldn't running it in kiosk mode on it's own desktop work without code changes and without having to do the backdoor trickery that has been done up till now? David Lang Though stuff like gimp or the gnome calculator (try to maximize it on your desktop) will break. Marco ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:15 AM, surendra sedhai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have tested for firefox only. For both firefox-2 and firefox-3 it works well. I have used my own svg file so I dont get any problem regarding icon. Its really easy to make it work. I have tried to make the xo bundle from those stuffs . The steps I did was 1)Sugarize the firefox What do you mean with this? Are you following a wiki page or something? Marco ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:38 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Sayamindu Dasgupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From what I gathered from my experiments, I think it makes sense for us to go with Metacity + maximus. That would require no code changes in metacity and minor changes in sugar. If we want to support activity icons though, we would probably require some more code changes in sugar. Something that I wonder about the maximus approach... If you maximize the window when it's already mapped, won't you get a visible redraw? The advantage of the maximus approach to me is that you get applications like firefox to run fullscreen without code changes. for firefox, wouldn't running it in kiosk mode on it's own desktop work without code changes and without having to do the backdoor trickery that has been done up till now? I'm not familiar with firefox kiosk mode, but I suppose it would. Though there are many other applications which would make more sense to run fullscreen with no decoration, and which doesn't have a kiosk mode. Marco ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:38 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Sayamindu Dasgupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From what I gathered from my experiments, I think it makes sense for us to go with Metacity + maximus. That would require no code changes in metacity and minor changes in sugar. If we want to support activity icons though, we would probably require some more code changes in sugar. Something that I wonder about the maximus approach... If you maximize the window when it's already mapped, won't you get a visible redraw? The advantage of the maximus approach to me is that you get applications like firefox to run fullscreen without code changes. for firefox, wouldn't running it in kiosk mode on it's own desktop work without code changes and without having to do the backdoor trickery that has been done up till now? I'm not familiar with firefox kiosk mode, but I suppose it would. Though there are many other applications which would make more sense to run fullscreen with no decoration, and which doesn't have a kiosk mode. I'm looking for the cheap wins first ;-) when people talk about different desktops, doesn't this also imply different window managers for each one? if this is the case, then it should be fairly simple to define a window manager that defaults to opening the app fullscreen and has minimal (or non-existant) decorations on the window. this wouldn't require changing any code on any apps, just selecting the right window manager for that desktop (if the app never opens secondary windows it doesn't need any decorations, if it does, it may need some or all of the traditional decorations) David Lang ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm looking for the cheap wins first ;-) when people talk about different desktops, doesn't this also imply different window managers for each one? if this is the case, then it should be fairly simple to define a window manager that defaults to opening the app fullscreen and has minimal (or non-existant) decorations on the window. Nope, there would still be a single window manager. this wouldn't require changing any code on any apps, just selecting the right window manager for that desktop (if the app never opens secondary windows it doesn't need any decorations, if it does, it may need some or all of the traditional decorations) There are ways we can implement different behavior for different windows (for example the maximus approach could be extended to do so). The problem is, how do we know which windows should be displayed fullscreen (say the firefox or the gedit one) and which not (the gimp)? afaik there is no window hint which could help us there... Marco ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this wouldn't require changing any code on any apps, just selecting the right window manager for that desktop (if the app never opens secondary windows it doesn't need any decorations, if it does, it may need some or all of the traditional decorations) There are ways we can implement different behavior for different windows (for example the maximus approach could be extended to do so). The problem is, how do we know which windows should be displayed fullscreen (say the firefox or the gedit one) and which not (the gimp)? afaik there is no window hint which could help us there... Well, perhaps with the advent of UMPC and other medium-sized screen devices would make sense to have it? If we are quick, we could get that done in most software for F10 or F11? Regards, Tomeu ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm looking for the cheap wins first ;-) when people talk about different desktops, doesn't this also imply different window managers for each one? if this is the case, then it should be fairly simple to define a window manager that defaults to opening the app fullscreen and has minimal (or non-existant) decorations on the window. Nope, there would still be a single window manager. this wouldn't require changing any code on any apps, just selecting the right window manager for that desktop (if the app never opens secondary windows it doesn't need any decorations, if it does, it may need some or all of the traditional decorations) There are ways we can implement different behavior for different windows (for example the maximus approach could be extended to do so). The problem is, how do we know which windows should be displayed fullscreen (say the firefox or the gedit one) and which not (the gimp)? afaik there is no window hint which could help us there... I don't know of any hints that would provide a concete answer, but i can think of several things off the top of my head that could be used as heristics. among them what is the name of the program (lookup) what size is the requested window (if it's a 80x25 screen or larger maximize it, if it's small don't) is this the first window that's being opened for this program (if so maximize) what is the parent of this program (if the parent is our program launcher maximize). this may be combined with the 'first window' logic is this the first window that's being opened on this desktop (if so maximize) I am not remembering at the moment, but do programs ever ask for a window and not specify it's size? (if so it's probably the main window of the program, maximize it) while no heristics are perfect, I think ones can be figured out that are very good, and if you have a lookup table to let you specify things (and can use the frame button to pull up a menu to let you override the defaults and make an entry for this program) It may be good enough to be useable. David Lang ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Tomeu Vizoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this wouldn't require changing any code on any apps, just selecting the right window manager for that desktop (if the app never opens secondary windows it doesn't need any decorations, if it does, it may need some or all of the traditional decorations) There are ways we can implement different behavior for different windows (for example the maximus approach could be extended to do so). The problem is, how do we know which windows should be displayed fullscreen (say the firefox or the gedit one) and which not (the gimp)? afaik there is no window hint which could help us there... Well, perhaps with the advent of UMPC and other medium-sized screen devices would make sense to have it? If we are quick, we could get that done in most software for F10 or F11? The thing is that applications using the gimp windows model are rare and discouraged (by the gnome hig at least). So I expect little interest in coming up with hints to better describe that windows model... Marco ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:31 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm looking for the cheap wins first ;-) when people talk about different desktops, doesn't this also imply different window managers for each one? if this is the case, then it should be fairly simple to define a window manager that defaults to opening the app fullscreen and has minimal (or non-existant) decorations on the window. Nope, there would still be a single window manager. this wouldn't require changing any code on any apps, just selecting the right window manager for that desktop (if the app never opens secondary windows it doesn't need any decorations, if it does, it may need some or all of the traditional decorations) There are ways we can implement different behavior for different windows (for example the maximus approach could be extended to do so). The problem is, how do we know which windows should be displayed fullscreen (say the firefox or the gedit one) and which not (the gimp)? afaik there is no window hint which could help us there... I don't know of any hints that would provide a concete answer, but i can think of several things off the top of my head that could be used as heristics. Yeah maybe we can come up with some heuristic that works... The only real application that I know would cause us problems here is the gimp, does anyone have examples of other applications with an usual windows model? Marco ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: | On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Albert Cahalan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Can't regular activities just ask to be maximized | and/or ask to be the same size as the screen? | The common Python libraries could do this. | | * Applications like firefox gets displayed like normal windows with | decorations, which is suboptimal. I disagree. Firefox is designed to be run under a window manager with decorations and all. It uses additional windows for a variety of notifications and information, like starting and monitoring downloads, or accepting self-signed certificates. It even has a new window function under the File menu. Firefox is really a multi-window program, and so are OpenOffice, Pidgin, Thunderbird, Evolution, and most other modern X11 apps. If you want instant compatibility with legacy apps, then legacy mode must simply provide a traditional window manager, decorations included. - --Ben P.S. Of course, there are lots of other compatibility issues with Rainbow and Datastore, but that's not what this thread is about. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkhk8k0ACgkQUJT6e6HFtqSadgCgkipjOG/fwxNEfVgWmRTtZivd 40EAn3fkD8p9lySYZWM5P4RatPg4PRxS =v6HK -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: | On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Albert Cahalan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Can't regular activities just ask to be maximized | and/or ask to be the same size as the screen? | The common Python libraries could do this. | | * Applications like firefox gets displayed like normal windows with | decorations, which is suboptimal. I disagree. Firefox is designed to be run under a window manager with decorations and all. It uses additional windows for a variety of notifications and information, like starting and monitoring downloads, or accepting self-signed certificates. These windows are hinted as dialogs and can be displayed with decoration without problems... Marco ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
There are ways we can implement different behavior for different windows (for example the maximus approach could be extended to do so). The problem is, how do we know which windows should be displayed fullscreen (say the firefox or the gedit one) and which not (the gimp)? afaik there is no window hint which could help us there... Also note that Metacity is reputed to be a decent code base to work in; a simple modification isn't unreasonable - Jim -- Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] One Laptop Per Child ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:31 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm looking for the cheap wins first ;-) when people talk about different desktops, doesn't this also imply different window managers for each one? if this is the case, then it should be fairly simple to define a window manager that defaults to opening the app fullscreen and has minimal (or non-existant) decorations on the window. Nope, there would still be a single window manager. this wouldn't require changing any code on any apps, just selecting the right window manager for that desktop (if the app never opens secondary windows it doesn't need any decorations, if it does, it may need some or all of the traditional decorations) There are ways we can implement different behavior for different windows (for example the maximus approach could be extended to do so). The problem is, how do we know which windows should be displayed fullscreen (say the firefox or the gedit one) and which not (the gimp)? afaik there is no window hint which could help us there... I don't know of any hints that would provide a concete answer, but i can think of several things off the top of my head that could be used as heristics. Yeah maybe we can come up with some heuristic that works... The only real application that I know would cause us problems here is the gimp, does anyone have examples of other applications with an usual windows model? Dia - at least the last time I checked. Thanks, Sayamindu -- Sayamindu Dasgupta [http://sayamindu.randomink.org/ramblings] ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Sayamindu Dasgupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From what I gathered from my experiments, I think it makes sense for us to go with Metacity + maximus. That would require no code changes in metacity and minor changes in sugar. If we want to support activity icons though, we would probably require some more code changes in sugar. Something that I wonder about the maximus approach... If you maximize the window when it's already mapped, won't you get a visible redraw? The advantage of the maximus approach to me is that you get applications like firefox to run fullscreen without code changes. Though stuff like gimp or the gnome calculator (try to maximize it on your desktop) will break. GNOME Calculator did not break in sugar when I ran it in maximized + undecorated mode. Gimp did though. Thanks, Sayamindu -- Sayamindu Dasgupta [http://sayamindu.randomink.org/ramblings] ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Sayamindu Dasgupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GNOME Calculator did not break in sugar when I ran it in maximized + undecorated mode. Gimp did though. Breaks as it looks really ugly (huge buttons). I guess that's something you could fix upstream though... Marco ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Sayamindu Dasgupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GNOME Calculator did not break in sugar when I ran it in maximized + undecorated mode. Gimp did though. Breaks as it looks really ugly (huge buttons). I guess that's something you could fix upstream though... Ermm.. It looked OK. But I guess I was running it in scientific mode, so there were a lot of buttons :-). Cheers, Sayamindu -- Sayamindu Dasgupta [http://sayamindu.randomink.org/ramblings] ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are ways we can implement different behavior for different windows (for example the maximus approach could be extended to do so). The problem is, how do we know which windows should be displayed fullscreen (say the firefox or the gedit one) and which not (the gimp)? afaik there is no window hint which could help us there... Also note that Metacity is reputed to be a decent code base to work in; a simple modification isn't unreasonable - Jim Metacity seems to have pretty legible code - my hack to make it show all windows in maximized + undecorated mode took only around a few lines of code changes (http://dev.laptop.org/~sayamindu/sugar_metacity/patches/metacity_sugarify.patch). Cheers, Sayamindu -- Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] One Laptop Per Child ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel -- Sayamindu Dasgupta [http://sayamindu.randomink.org/ramblings] ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [IAEP] Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 11:19 +0200, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: There are ways we can implement different behavior for different windows (for example the maximus approach could be extended to do so). The problem is, how do we know which windows should be displayed fullscreen (say the firefox or the gedit one) and which not (the gimp)? afaik there is no window hint which could help us there... There are ICCCM/EWMH hints to request full screen behavior, already implemented by window managers: e.g. totem or other video players use these routinely. - Jim -- Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] One Laptop Per Child ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [IAEP] Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 11:19 +0200, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: There are ways we can implement different behavior for different windows (for example the maximus approach could be extended to do so). The problem is, how do we know which windows should be displayed fullscreen (say the firefox or the gedit one) and which not (the gimp)? afaik there is no window hint which could help us there... There are ICCCM/EWMH hints to request full screen behavior, already implemented by window managers: e.g. totem or other video players use these routinely. Here we was discussing the approach used by maximus. They are basically maximizing/undecorating windows whenever they are mapped (as long as they are normal windows and not dialogs). Now this works for something like firefox, but for gimp there is no hint that tells you that the tools window should *not* be maximized. About the fullscreen hint. Sayamindu tried out that approach but he run into problems. One of them was that panels are hidden by fullscreen windows (and we made the sugar frame a panel). But I think there was others. In general the downsides of the fullscreen hint approach are the same of using maximize+undecorate in the sugar Activity implementation. i.e. normal applications that you likely want fullscreened on the XO (firefox for example), would require code modification to do so. Maybe that's something we can punt on, don't know... Marco ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [IAEP] Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 11:19 +0200, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: There are ways we can implement different behavior for different windows (for example the maximus approach could be extended to do so). The problem is, how do we know which windows should be displayed fullscreen (say the firefox or the gedit one) and which not (the gimp)? afaik there is no window hint which could help us there... There are ICCCM/EWMH hints to request full screen behavior, already implemented by window managers: e.g. totem or other video players use these routinely. Here we was discussing the approach used by maximus. They are basically maximizing/undecorating windows whenever they are mapped (as long as they are normal windows and not dialogs). Now this works for something like firefox, but for gimp there is no hint that tells you that the tools window should *not* be maximized. About the fullscreen hint. Sayamindu tried out that approach but he run into problems. One of them was that panels are hidden by fullscreen windows (and we made the sugar frame a panel). But I think there was others. Fullscreen seems to be significantly different from maximized + undecorated. The only sugar activity I can think of which uses fullscreen mode at certain times is Record. Cheers, Sayamindu -- Sayamindu Dasgupta [http://sayamindu.randomink.org/ramblings] ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [IAEP] Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Sayamindu Dasgupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 11:19 +0200, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: There are ways we can implement different behavior for different windows (for example the maximus approach could be extended to do so). The problem is, how do we know which windows should be displayed fullscreen (say the firefox or the gedit one) and which not (the gimp)? afaik there is no window hint which could help us there... There are ICCCM/EWMH hints to request full screen behavior, already implemented by window managers: e.g. totem or other video players use these routinely. Here we was discussing the approach used by maximus. They are basically maximizing/undecorating windows whenever they are mapped (as long as they are normal windows and not dialogs). Now this works for something like firefox, but for gimp there is no hint that tells you that the tools window should *not* be maximized. About the fullscreen hint. Sayamindu tried out that approach but he run into problems. One of them was that panels are hidden by fullscreen windows (and we made the sugar frame a panel). But I think there was others. Fullscreen seems to be significantly different from maximized + undecorated. The only sugar activity I can think of which uses fullscreen mode at certain times is Record. All the activities can use fullscreen actually, it's in the base class. In matchbox the effect is just that the toolbars goes away, but if you runned them on a standard desktop they would actually be made fullscreen. My feeling is that the right approach here is to let the window manager deal with the window sizing, on the base of the available hints. That ways both activities and applications can behave in an optimal way, depending on the window manager they run in. The simplest implementation of this approach is maximus, i.e. the window manager maximize all normal windows. This should work well for most existing applications. For the side cases you'd have either to get additional hints in the freedesktop spec or to use heuristics like those David described. Does it make sense? Can you think of better approaches? Marco ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [IAEP] Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Sayamindu Dasgupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 11:19 +0200, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: There are ways we can implement different behavior for different windows (for example the maximus approach could be extended to do so). The problem is, how do we know which windows should be displayed fullscreen (say the firefox or the gedit one) and which not (the gimp)? afaik there is no window hint which could help us there... There are ICCCM/EWMH hints to request full screen behavior, already implemented by window managers: e.g. totem or other video players use these routinely. Here we was discussing the approach used by maximus. They are basically maximizing/undecorating windows whenever they are mapped (as long as they are normal windows and not dialogs). Now this works for something like firefox, but for gimp there is no hint that tells you that the tools window should *not* be maximized. About the fullscreen hint. Sayamindu tried out that approach but he run into problems. One of them was that panels are hidden by fullscreen windows (and we made the sugar frame a panel). But I think there was others. Fullscreen seems to be significantly different from maximized + undecorated. The only sugar activity I can think of which uses fullscreen mode at certain times is Record. All the activities can use fullscreen actually, it's in the base class. In matchbox the effect is just that the toolbars goes away, but if you runned them on a standard desktop they would actually be made fullscreen. My feeling is that the right approach here is to let the window manager deal with the window sizing, on the base of the available hints. That ways both activities and applications can behave in an optimal way, depending on the window manager they run in. The simplest implementation of this approach is maximus, i.e. the window manager maximize all normal windows. This should work well for most existing applications. For the side cases you'd have either to get additional hints in the freedesktop spec or to use heuristics like those David described. Does it make sense? Can you think of better approaches? It does make sense. I think metacity already does special stuff for certain applications (eg: gnome-terminal[1]). From what I understand, the number of apps which would require special treatment should not be very high. Cheers, Sayamindu [1] http://git-mirror.gnome.org/?p=metacity;a=blob;f=src/core/window.c#l1960 -- Sayamindu Dasgupta [http://sayamindu.randomink.org/ramblings] ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [IAEP] Running regular X11 apps
dia folk are working on a feature that allows either the gimp style (SDI) or the windows style (MDI). Don't know when it will be released. Gimp is available via the gimpshop fork as an MDI application. Does this help? On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Sayamindu Dasgupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 8:39 PM, Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are ways we can implement different behavior for different windows (for example the maximus approach could be extended to do so). The problem is, how do we know which windows should be displayed fullscreen (say the firefox or the gedit one) and which not (the gimp)? afaik there is no window hint which could help us there... Also note that Metacity is reputed to be a decent code base to work in; a simple modification isn't unreasonable - Jim Metacity seems to have pretty legible code - my hack to make it show all windows in maximized + undecorated mode took only around a few lines of code changes ( http://dev.laptop.org/~sayamindu/sugar_metacity/patches/metacity_sugarify.patchhttp://dev.laptop.org/%7Esayamindu/sugar_metacity/patches/metacity_sugarify.patch ). Cheers, Sayamindu -- Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] One Laptop Per Child ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel -- Sayamindu Dasgupta [http://sayamindu.randomink.org/ramblings] ___ Its.an.education.project mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.lo-res.org/mailman/listinfo/its.an.education.project -- Always do right, said Mark Twain. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [IAEP] Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Sayamindu Dasgupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Jim Gettys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 11:19 +0200, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: There are ways we can implement different behavior for different windows (for example the maximus approach could be extended to do so). The problem is, how do we know which windows should be displayed fullscreen (say the firefox or the gedit one) and which not (the gimp)? afaik there is no window hint which could help us there... There are ICCCM/EWMH hints to request full screen behavior, already implemented by window managers: e.g. totem or other video players use these routinely. Here we was discussing the approach used by maximus. They are basically maximizing/undecorating windows whenever they are mapped (as long as they are normal windows and not dialogs). Now this works for something like firefox, but for gimp there is no hint that tells you that the tools window should *not* be maximized. About the fullscreen hint. Sayamindu tried out that approach but he run into problems. One of them was that panels are hidden by fullscreen windows (and we made the sugar frame a panel). But I think there was others. Fullscreen seems to be significantly different from maximized + undecorated. The only sugar activity I can think of which uses fullscreen mode at certain times is Record. All the activities can use fullscreen actually, it's in the base class. In matchbox the effect is just that the toolbars goes away, but if you runned them on a standard desktop they would actually be made fullscreen. What happens when you try to make activities full screen in metacity (by setting the appropriate ICCCM/EWMH hints) looks like http://dev.laptop.org/~sayamindu/sugar_metacity/Captura%20de%20pantalla_1.png If you set maximized = false, undecorated = true, you get http://dev.laptop.org/~sayamindu/sugar_metacity/Captura%20de%20pantalla_1_2.png However, in some cases maximized = false, undecorated = true, resizeable = true can make metacity assume that the application is trying to become full screen (apparenly certain versions of Adobe Reader and a few other apps do this), and then you get back http://dev.laptop.org/~sayamindu/sugar_metacity/Captura%20de%20pantalla_1.png Cheers, Sayamindu -- Sayamindu Dasgupta [http://sayamindu.randomink.org/ramblings] ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [IAEP] Running regular X11 apps
2008/6/27 Carol Lerche [EMAIL PROTECTED]: dia folk are working on a feature that allows either the gimp style (SDI) or the windows style (MDI). Don't know when it will be released. Gimp is available via the gimpshop fork as an MDI application. Does this help? Yeah. And I think it's yet another proof that we should probably not worry too much about supporting SDI. Marco ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [IAEP] Running regular X11 apps
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Sayamindu Dasgupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What happens when you try to make activities full screen in metacity (by setting the appropriate ICCCM/EWMH hints) looks like http://dev.laptop.org/~sayamindu/sugar_metacity/Captura%20de%20pantalla_1.png If you set maximized = false, undecorated = true, you get http://dev.laptop.org/~sayamindu/sugar_metacity/Captura%20de%20pantalla_1_2.png However, in some cases maximized = false, undecorated = true, resizeable = true can make metacity assume that the application is trying to become full screen (apparenly certain versions of Adobe Reader and a few other apps do this), and then you get back http://dev.laptop.org/~sayamindu/sugar_metacity/Captura%20de%20pantalla_1.png I'm not particularly worried about this one because I'm sure we can work out a way to disable this hack with the metacity guys (at runtime so that it can be done on stock distributions). We could even just add a single --fullscreen command line option to metacity which would: 1 Make all normal windows behave like maximized/undecorated 2 Make sure we don't trigger the fullscreen hack. Actually this is exactly what the --fullscreen option does in matchbox. But metacity has much better support for !normal windows. Marco ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: [IAEP] Running regular X11 apps
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 4:51 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Sayamindu Dasgupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What happens when you try to make activities full screen in metacity (by setting the appropriate ICCCM/EWMH hints) looks like http://dev.laptop.org/~sayamindu/sugar_metacity/Captura%20de%20pantalla_1.png If you set maximized = false, undecorated = true, you get http://dev.laptop.org/~sayamindu/sugar_metacity/Captura%20de%20pantalla_1_2.png However, in some cases maximized = false, undecorated = true, resizeable = true can make metacity assume that the application is trying to become full screen (apparenly certain versions of Adobe Reader and a few other apps do this), and then you get back http://dev.laptop.org/~sayamindu/sugar_metacity/Captura%20de%20pantalla_1.png I'm not particularly worried about this one because I'm sure we can work out a way to disable this hack with the metacity guys (at runtime so that it can be done on stock distributions). We could even just add a single --fullscreen command line option to metacity which would: 1 Make all normal windows behave like maximized/undecorated 2 Make sure we don't trigger the fullscreen hack. Actually this is exactly what the --fullscreen option does in matchbox. But metacity has much better support for !normal windows. Marco Yep - I was thinking of a similar approach (using an environment variable) - but --fullscreen option seems to be better :-) Cheers, Sayamindu -- Sayamindu Dasgupta [http://sayamindu.randomink.org/ramblings] ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
I have tested for firefox only. For both firefox-2 and firefox-3 it works well. I have used my own svg file so I dont get any problem regarding icon. Its really easy to make it work. I have tried to make the xo bundle from those stuffs . The steps I did was 1)Sugarize the firefox 2) Copy entire firefox into firefox.activitity/bin 3) change the content of sugarfirefox (exec /home/firefox/firefox) to (exec ./firefox/firefox) 4) Zip the entire firefox.activity folder to firefox.xo When I install this firefox.xo activity with sugar-install-bundle firefox activity get installed, however, it does not lunch firefox properly. Is that sensible way to make XO activities? Regards, Surendra On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Bernie Innocenti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: Other than the circle icon, do you have any major issue? If it's just that, adding _NET_WM_ICON support to the sugar shell should be really easy. I'm not sure... Surendra has been working on it. Added him to cc in case he has comments. I'm planning to work on a proper fix for the whole issue (at the window management level at least) for 0.84. Yay, thanks! -- \___/ Bernie Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/ _| X | Sugar Labs Team - http://www.sugarlabs.org/ \|_O_| It's an education project, not a laptop project! ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Running regular X11 apps
Am 26.06.2008 um 05:12 schrieb Bernie Innocenti: Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: If we manage to make DBus entirely optional, the initial effort of porting a Linux applications to Sugar would be greatly simplified. As far as I know this is already the case. The only non standard bit are a couple of custom X properties. Oh, is there a way around this requirement too? A few days ago someone here at OLE Nepal bundled up Firefox 2 and was disappointed to get the infamous circle icon. For them, changing the code and rebuilding from source would be overkill. (please don't ask me why Firefox 2... it might have been any large Linux application) If nobody has looked at this before, I might give it a shot to see what the Gnome wnck applet does to pair windows with their applications and desktop icons. The only part-way solution so far is Albert's libsugarize: http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2008-January/009387.html - Bert - ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Bert Freudenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, is there a way around this requirement too? A few days ago someone here at OLE Nepal bundled up Firefox 2 and was disappointed to get the infamous circle icon. For them, changing the code and rebuilding from source would be overkill. Other than the circle icon, do you have any major issue? If it's just that, adding _NET_WM_ICON support to the sugar shell should be really easy. I'm planning to work on a proper fix for the whole issue (at the window management level at least) for 0.84. Marco ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Albert Cahalan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 4:14 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Other than the circle icon, do you have any major issue? If it's just that, adding _NET_WM_ICON support to the sugar shell should be really easy. Great. BTW, the old-style bitmaps could be given the XO colors and then scaled. I'm planning to work on a proper fix for the whole issue (at the window management level at least) for 0.84. How will it work? Consider running one Sugar activity per virtual desktop. This would allow multi-window programs like the infamous gimp to fit in pretty well, except that of course they are not full-screen and thus receive window borders. Nobody ever sees a window border until they run something that isn't full-screen. Not fully defined yet. Sayamindu experimented with it a bit, there are (messy) notes on the wiki: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/WindowManagement Your idea is interesting, I'll try to think it all through. I added it to the wiki btw. Thanks, Marco ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: Other than the circle icon, do you have any major issue? If it's just that, adding _NET_WM_ICON support to the sugar shell should be really easy. I'm not sure... Surendra has been working on it. Added him to cc in case he has comments. I'm planning to work on a proper fix for the whole issue (at the window management level at least) for 0.84. Yay, thanks! -- \___/ Bernie Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/ _| X | Sugar Labs Team - http://www.sugarlabs.org/ \|_O_| It's an education project, not a laptop project! ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Albert Cahalan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 4:14 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Other than the circle icon, do you have any major issue? If it's just that, adding _NET_WM_ICON support to the sugar shell should be really easy. Great. BTW, the old-style bitmaps could be given the XO colors and then scaled. I'm planning to work on a proper fix for the whole issue (at the window management level at least) for 0.84. How will it work? Consider running one Sugar activity per virtual desktop. This would allow multi-window programs like the infamous gimp to fit in pretty well, except that of course they are not full-screen and thus receive window borders. Nobody ever sees a window border until they run something that isn't full-screen. Not fully defined yet. Sayamindu experimented with it a bit, there are (messy) notes on the wiki: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/WindowManagement Your idea is interesting, I'll try to think it all through. I added it to the wiki btw. From what I gathered from my experiments, I think it makes sense for us to go with Metacity + maximus. That would require no code changes in metacity and minor changes in sugar. If we want to support activity icons though, we would probably require some more code changes in sugar. Thanks, Sayamindu -- Sayamindu Dasgupta [http://sayamindu.randomink.org/ramblings] ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
Re: Running regular X11 apps
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Sayamindu Dasgupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From what I gathered from my experiments, I think it makes sense for us to go with Metacity + maximus. That would require no code changes in metacity and minor changes in sugar. If we want to support activity icons though, we would probably require some more code changes in sugar. Maximus won't handle the gimp AFAIK. Can't regular activities just ask to be maximized and/or ask to be the same size as the screen? The common Python libraries could do this. The critical thing here is switching between multi-window programs that have stuff like floating toolbars. I suspect that a one-desktop-per-activity policy will get you that. If metacity needs to change, then it changes. Changing it might involve a new freedesktop.org specification, so that the changes don't become some sugar-specific hack. ___ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
