Re: Removing EWMH support?
On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 11:41:54PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: A current discussion with the gaim developers about some gaim mis-feature has made me think about abandoning EWMH support completely. In my eyes, the only usefull message it has is the FULLSCREEN stuff. Everything else is just causing trouble. Time to stick my head out from the parapet, then. :) Reasoning: * Most of the EWMH features are intended to mix applications written for the different desktop environments (DE), e.g. a KDE pager with a GNOME taskbar. Indeed. This is why the EWMH spec was originally written, yes? To address the limitations [1] of the ICCCM specification, and to unify the similar starting projects addressed by both KDE and GNOME as to how clients were to respond to these DEs. I assume EWMHs work well with DE -- DE in this case, or where a EWMH-client is running under a EWMH-aware DE. Where the problem occurs (that I can see) is when EWMHs are tried to be manipulated by the user. Was this ever an intended feature? It wouldn't seem as though it was -- at least not from what I can tell. * If fvwm is not running under a DE, these features are utterly useless. Agreed. * If running under a DE, using the DE's pager, taskbar, etc. is not necessary as fvwm has a rich set of these modules. The problem here is one of convenience for most people, Dominik. As _much_ as I agree with you on this -- in that most EWMH-applications (for things like pagers and taskbars) can and are available in FVWM, not everyone uses them. Some people like the use of KDE's Kicker (shudder) or GNOME's panel. How can you reconcile the removal (potentially) of that feature set if you remove or discontinue EWMH support? * An increasing number of applications mis-uses the EWMH hints to do funny things. This is where I see the bone of contention, Dominik. At the moment you're having to almost write EWMH support into FVWNM to address the EWMH's limitations in fixing it, when ultimately the responsibility falls down to the XClient in question. * Most users have *no* chance to control such appications. For example, the problem with SkipMapping and gaim that led to the discussion on the gaim list. It took the user several days to figure out the problem and had to ask the fvwm developers for help. There's a dichotomy (see above) between implementing EWMH to the specification given, and then reimplementing certain features to fix the limitations either within the XClient in question, or the specification. I still look at EWMH support as a buzzword. All this leads me to the conclusion that the EWMH spec (at least the client message part) offers very little benefits but causes a huge amount of trouble. It is simply not worth the effort. I vote for abandoning EWMH support (at least the client messages). Agreed. (For what that's worth). -- Thomas Adam [1] I can only see limitation as being one of stagnation -- i.e. the ICCCM hasn't been formally updated in a while now. -- I've been too honest with myself, I should have lied like everybody else.
Re: Removing EWMH support?
On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 11:41:54PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: A current discussion with the gaim developers about some gaim mis-feature has made me think about abandoning EWMH support completely. In my eyes, the only usefull message it has is the FULLSCREEN stuff. Everything else is just causing trouble. Reasoning: * Most of the EWMH features are intended to mix applications written for the different desktop environments (DE), e.g. a KDE pager with a GNOME taskbar. Which may also be using fvwm as a window manager. I don't see anything wrong with mixing and matching different parts of DEs to create one that a user feels more comfortable in, tho admittly such mixing is going to be an experimental thing anyways. * If fvwm is not running under a DE, these features are utterly useless. I vaguely remember choosing to upgrade to fvwm 2.5.5 just for EWMH support... something to do with FvwmTaskBar. * If running under a DE, using the DE's pager, taskbar, etc. is not necessary as fvwm has a rich set of these modules. I think this is a user preference - the person who sets up the DE should get the choice whether to use fvwm's Pager or the DE's native pager, etc. * An increasing number of applications mis-uses the EWMH hints to do funny things. This is probably true. I know certain patched versions of qemu that do this. ;) * Most users have *no* chance to control such appications. For example, the problem with SkipMapping and gaim that led to the discussion on the gaim list. It took the user several days to figure out the problem and had to ask the fvwm developers for help. Where? A search on gaim-devel @ Sourceforge turned up nothing... The right answer might be to fix the spec (or the implementation of the spec) in order to give the user that chance to control the app - but whether that is possible depends on how broken the spec is in the first place. All this leads me to the conclusion that the EWMH spec (at least the client message part) offers very little benefits but causes a huge amount of trouble. It is simply not worth the effort. I vote for abandoning EWMH support (at least the client messages). Opinions? If the standard is badly broken, then I vote yes. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Infinite complexity begets infinite beauty. Infinite precision begets infinite perfection.
Re: Removing EWMH support?
Dominik Vogt spake unto us the following wisdom: A current discussion with the gaim developers about some gaim mis-feature has made me think about abandoning EWMH support completely. In my eyes, the only usefull message it has is the FULLSCREEN stuff. Everything else is just causing trouble. I am a gaim developer, and I use FVWM. (In fact, I think I may be the _only_ Gaim developer using FVWM for my normal day-to-day use.) I apparently completely missed this discussion; where did it take place? I am not aware of any Gaim features which interact poorly with fvwm, but I must admit that I probably don't use most of the features which are *likely* to have poor interactions, because I think they're stupid. I have heard users complain that raising the gaim window causes fvwm to give it focus, but normally it turns out that they are setting the Urgent hint and the default fvwm urgent handler is simply doing its thing. If there is a bug or misfeature which should be fixed, I would like to know so that I can make sure it is addressed. All this leads me to the conclusion that the EWMH spec (at least the client message part) offers very little benefits but causes a huge amount of trouble. It is simply not worth the effort. I vote for abandoning EWMH support (at least the client messages). As you noted, the only part I have ever found particularly handy is fullscreen. I have no problem with this change, in general. Ethan -- The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy for evils]. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. -- Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments, 1764 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
