Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-25 Thread Marco Pesenti Gritti
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:37 PM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My feeling is that metacity will be hard to upstream patches to, and it would be more work to get working 'right', since it's pretty much designed *not* to be extensible. I tend to think metacity upstream might take

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-24 Thread Michael Stone
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 04:16:17PM -0400, Walter Bender wrote: We all agree that the datastore needs serious attention, although it doesn't directly impact the running of legacy activities. Rainbow is an issue. And moving data back and forth between Sugar and legacy apps is an issue. Please say

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-24 Thread Erik Garrison
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 04:16:17PM -0400, Walter Bender wrote: We all agree that the datastore needs serious attention, although it doesn't directly impact the running of legacy activities. Rainbow is an issue. And moving data back and forth between Sugar and legacy apps is an issue. But I'll

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-24 Thread Walter Bender
Erik introduced the Journal/datastore to this thread about modifying the approach Sugar has taken to WM in order to better support legacy applications, The Gimp being everyone's favorite example. I am simply suggesting that the WM is--while not the least of our problems--less of an issue than

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-24 Thread C. Scott Ananian
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Walter Bender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: of an issue than resolving incompatibilities between libraries (The Gimp pulls in all sorts of stuff and Inkscape tries to pull in incompatible libraries, such as an old version of poppler), No longer the case.

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-23 Thread Walter Bender
Could you please elaborate on what the behavior of the Journal has to do with this thread? -walter On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Erik Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 05:01:41PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: My impression, based on historical conversations with the

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-23 Thread Erik Garrison
Well. It's off-topic. I guess it came to mind because the Journal and datastore are a point of incompatibility between Sugar and the rest of the Linux desktop world. Erik On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 08:16:25AM -0400, Walter Bender wrote: Could you please elaborate on what the behavior of the

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-23 Thread Erik Garrison
Well. It's off-topic. I guess it came to mind because the Journal and datastore are a point of incompatibility between Sugar and the rest of the Linux desktop world. Erik On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 08:16:25AM -0400, Walter Bender wrote: Could you please elaborate on what the behavior of the

feedback about usage of the journal in uruguay (was Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec)

2008-09-23 Thread Tomeu Vizoso
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Erik Garrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For what it's worth, it is also my impression. I have heard similarly from virtually all technically-oriented parties involved. I have heard echos of this from less technical users (e.g. teachers who are confused by the

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-22 Thread Erik Garrison
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 05:01:41PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: My impression, based on historical conversations with the parties involved is that there are a bunch of hackers who feel that we did ourselves a disservice by dropping _so much_ backwards compatibility, specifically with Unix

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-22 Thread C. Scott Ananian
IMO, there is no technical reason why we can't support every X application, no matter how baroque. Window manager technology is as old as X. Given that we can, we *should*. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) ___ Devel mailing list

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-21 Thread Benjamin M. Schwartz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Walter Bender wrote: | (I run SKYPE in Bert's X Activity | without a problem.) The principle goal of this discussion is to make the X Activity unnecessary by moving that functionality into Sugar's window management. Possible motivations for this

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-21 Thread Walter Bender
The X Activity is pretty straight forward. But it does not integrate the Sugar copy/paste/theming etc. The point of my question was not so much to question those goals as much as to ask if we have data re what percentage of legacy applications are multiwindow? If it is a small percentage, then

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-21 Thread Mikus Grinbergs
The principal goal of this discussion is to make the X Activity unnecessary by moving that functionality into Sugar's window management. what percentage of legacy applications are multiwindow? If it is a small percentage, then maybe we shouldn't be so focused on their support at the expense

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-21 Thread Michael Stone
My impression, based on historical conversations with the parties involved is that there are a bunch of hackers who feel that we did ourselves a disservice by dropping _so much_ backwards compatibility, specifically with Unix filesystems and desktops, in exchange for cool ideas. The feeling is

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-20 Thread Walter Bender
I am curious: do we have a taxonomy of the various applications we are expecting to see. Has there been a characterization of the problem we are trying to solve? The Gimp, which is a mess in any wm, seems to be the only example of a lots of floating little windows application anyone ever mentions.

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread Marco Pesenti Gritti
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Benjamin M. Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's keep thinking about this. For example, I wonder what Metacity does to a window that is both _NET_WM_STATE_FULLSCREEN and _NET_WM_STATE_BELOW? Does it stack it below the Frame, if the Frame is

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread Benjamin M. Schwartz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: | On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Benjamin M. Schwartz | [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Let's keep thinking about this. For example, I wonder what Metacity does | to a window that is both _NET_WM_STATE_FULLSCREEN and |

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread Bobby Powers
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Benjamin M. Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's keep thinking about this. For example, I wonder what Metacity does to a window that is both _NET_WM_STATE_FULLSCREEN and

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread Marco Pesenti Gritti
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Bobby Powers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we set on moving to metacity? I remember murmurs of using xmonad, as well as another wm I can't remember the name of. Are these stacking/hinting problems common to all window mangers, or just metacity? They are

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread Marco Pesenti Gritti
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Bobby Powers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we set on moving to metacity? I remember murmurs of using xmonad, as well as another wm I can't remember the name of. Are these

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread Marco Pesenti Gritti
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I just thought of a worst problem with the FULLSCREEN approach. | FULLSCREEN windows are always on the top of NORMAL windows. Why is this a problem? When do we need an Activity to be visible, full-screen, and

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread C. Scott Ananian
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Sayamindu Dasgupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marco and I have been discussing on how to make a window manager like Metacity fit into the Sugar environment, and based on our current discussions, as well as past discussions, it seems clear that we need changes to

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread Benjamin M. Schwartz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 We are talking about replacing Matchbox with Metacity in the XO build of Sugar. C. Scott Ananian wrote: | When I run | sugar under metacity, I don't *want* my activities to be full screen. I think you mean When I run Sugar inside a standard desktop

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread Marco Pesenti Gritti
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:26 PM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you are confusing the role of the Window Manager. When I run sugar under metacity, I don't *want* my activities to be full screen. When I use a windowing wm, I expect them to be in (decorated) windows. Yeah,

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread C. Scott Ananian
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 We are talking about replacing Matchbox with Metacity in the XO build of Sugar. Right, I think that's where you're going wrong. You should be considering replacing

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread C. Scott Ananian
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suppose we could add a new hint for some activities indicating which of their multiple windows (if any) should be the 'background' one mapped full-screen, but I believe the existing hints are adequate. That's

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread Marco Pesenti Gritti
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:43 PM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, if there's only one window, and it's stretchable, then your decision is easy. If it requests a fixed size, then you should probably decorate and float all the windows. I could also see floating all fixed size

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread Sayamindu Dasgupta
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 12:49 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I just thought of a worst problem with the FULLSCREEN approach. | FULLSCREEN windows are always on the top of NORMAL windows. Why

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread Sayamindu Dasgupta
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 12:56 AM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Sayamindu Dasgupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marco and I have been discussing on how to make a window manager like Metacity fit into the Sugar environment, and based on our current

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread Sayamindu Dasgupta
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 1:13 AM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suppose we could add a new hint for some activities indicating which of their multiple windows (if any) should be the 'background' one

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread Sayamindu Dasgupta
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:43 PM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, if there's only one window, and it's stretchable, then your decision is easy. If it requests a fixed size, then you should probably

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread C. Scott Ananian
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Sayamindu Dasgupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Metacity was provided just as an example. The issue here is that we want to replace Matchbox with something which would let us support normal desktop applications better, ideally without requiring any kind of

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread Mikus Grinbergs
Lots of discussion -- but I'm not sure how much benefit the Sugar *user* might receive. I think that everybody agrees (myself included) that the user must be able to call up the Frame anytime. And for typical Activities, the amount of screen real estate they *themselves* obstruct (which the

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread C. Scott Ananian
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Mikus Grinbergs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lots of discussion -- but I'm not sure how much benefit the Sugar *user* might receive. Some users will want to use gimp. Some will want to use metacity. To me, supporting multiple windows for one Activity is a much

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread Marco Pesenti Gritti
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:37 PM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The main changes required, I think, would actually be to the shell code to make it happy running on a root window. There's some reparenting magic that's done to make that work right; I'm not sure what you mean exactly

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread Marco Pesenti Gritti
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And, of course, I wanted to switch sugar to using the standard X activity startup notification mechanism, and the standard desktop notification mechanism. I'm not sure this is necessary. All the activities will

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread C. Scott Ananian
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Marco Pesenti Gritti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And, of course, I wanted to switch sugar to using the standard X activity startup notification mechanism, and the standard desktop

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-19 Thread Marco Pesenti Gritti
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 1:26 AM, C. Scott Ananian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scratch that, I lied... I hope the freedesktop spec is flexible enough to implement our kind of UI feedback. I read the spec, it seemed sane. Proof will be in the implementation, though, of course. Yeah... Regarding

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-18 Thread Marco Pesenti Gritti
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Sayamindu Dasgupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a) applications like firefox will need to be modified so that they set the _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE_APPLICATION hint (ideally we would like to run the applications unmodified). The idea would be that applications would just

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-18 Thread Benjamin M. Schwartz
Sayamindu Dasgupta wrote: The simplest way to do this is mentioned in the draft, namely, to have a new _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE hint, called _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE_NETBOOK_APP (feel free to suggest a better name :-P). I do not understand at all why _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE_FULLSCREEN is insufficient.

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-18 Thread Benjamin M. Schwartz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: | ... _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE_FULLSCREEN ... That should be _NET_WM_STATE_FULLSCREEN. Oops, Ben -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-18 Thread Sayamindu Dasgupta
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Benjamin M. Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sayamindu Dasgupta wrote: The simplest way to do this is mentioned in the draft, namely, to have a new _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE hint, called _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE_NETBOOK_APP (feel free to suggest a better name :-P). I

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-18 Thread Marco Pesenti Gritti
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Sayamindu Dasgupta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some of our activities have a separate fullscreen mode. Take a look at the two screenshots of record: Fullscreen: http://dev.laptop.org/~sayamindu/sugar_metacity/Captura%20de%20pantalla_1.png Normal:

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-18 Thread Benjamin M. Schwartz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: | However, though we do not always show frames (or panels), there are | some environments which show at least a single panel all the time (eg: | Ubuntu Netbook Remix). In those cases, fullscreen might mean that | frame may

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-18 Thread Marco Pesenti Gritti
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In summary, I believe we can safely move to a lightly patched Metacity while tagging our windows purely according to the EWMH. That would mean to make Sugar impossible to use on a standard distribution. Marco

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-18 Thread Benjamin M. Schwartz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: | On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz | [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | In summary, I believe we can safely move to a lightly patched Metacity | while tagging our windows purely according to the EWMH. | | That

Re: [sugar] Supporting desktop applications, extending the EWMH spec

2008-09-18 Thread Marco Pesenti Gritti
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Benjamin M. Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: | On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz | [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | In summary, I believe we can safely move to a