Hi Mike, > Hm, you raise some interesting points. However, I think your argument is > somewhat misled by your claim that "this case is unique". If there is an > application which does not want to be larger than a certain size, why could > there not also be an application which does not want to be smaller than a > certain size?
It's unique because switching to maximize/fullscreen is not an interactive resize, ie the client doesn't have its word on the state change that implies the resize, and is mandatory configure event, until it's set by the compositor (ie too late, the client must obey, period). > It seems like continuing to add size hints based on this logic is almost > guaranteed, especially if you then add in the point of tiling > policies--surely handling tiling would be made even easier by adding > min/step/aspect sizes! > > To me, xdg-shell should just be a bare minimum of things required to > implement a UI with Wayland. Perhaps if there's a real need for size hints > (which I really hope there isn't, since it made X11 window sizing very > annoying) then there should be a separate size hints protocol where all of > this can be implemented? One case where a compositor may need a min size hint is a tiling window/compositing manager, so it can base its heuristics on those hints from the clients to get the optimal window size for tiling, but I would let those who implement such a window/compositor manager advocate for that, it's not the specific case I'm interested in here :-) Cheers, Olivier _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
