On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 22:40:10 -0700 Bill Spitzak <spit...@gmail.com> said:
> I think sending stepping size or aspect is not needed, but steps will > work only if the client can add a constant. Ie the width can be n*A+B > where A and B are specified by the client. The X11 version did not allow > a client to add a border that was not a multiple of the steps thick, > which made it pretty much impossible. yes the x11 version DId allow this. that's what base size was. stepping was to be done as base size + integer * step. read icccm. of course when i mention stepping i do mean base + size in integer multiples of a step as that is what icccm did and what existing apps have come to support and use and... what is necessary. > Aspect also needs the ability for the client to add a constant so a > frame can be put around the fixed-content area. aspect does this too. in fact it was min and max aspect .... accounting for base size too: http://www.x.org/releases/X11R7.6/doc/xorg-docs/specs/ICCCM/icccm.html x11 did get this right. aspect was really minimally useful. stepping was useful for just about every terminal and min/max have been widely used by apps. > Both of these I think are better handled by the client doing the resize > however, so only min/max should be sent. > > On 04/04/2016 07:20 PM, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote: > > On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 19:44:58 +0000 "Jasper St. Pierre" > > <jstpie...@mecheye.net> said: > > > >> I think min/max hints are acceptable in xdg-shell. > > > > i agree. they are realistic things a apps have as constraints on their > > content. knowing in advance what those constraints might be can make life > > for a compositor much easier. > > > > eg. if you set max size and its < screen size (or whatever size a maximized > > window might be in the wm) the em/compositor can disable the maximize action > > entirely. > > > > already pointed out - tiling wms can alter their layout policy for content > > eg placing content that has a small max height along the bottom or top of > > your screen. > > > > yes - asking for max size opens up min size too. > > > > i would argue size stepping is kind of needed too - the case of a tiling wm > > with eg: > > > > +---+---+ > > | 1 | 2 | > > +---+---+ > > | 3 | 4 | > > +---+---+ > > > > if all the windows are terminals whose content is only correct at "size > > units" (because otherwise the terminal pads out N pixels without expanding > > the terminal grid there just wasting space), then when resizing the > > dividers across the middle of the screen -0 dragging them up/down or > > left/right a wm might want to limit the sizing to steps of N pixels > > assuming all clients involved share a common size step (the implied default > > is 1 pixel). without this hint a wm is unable to do anything sensible here. > > > > i am not saying the wm MUST follow the hints. there are impossible cases. > > one window (1) uses size step 10x10, and (2) uses 9x9... there are very few > > points where they "agree". (at 0x0 +base, 90x90 + base , 180x180 + base > > etc.) so as a wm i would assume it would only follow stepping if all steps > > are multiples of each other eg 3x3, 6x6, 9x9 or 2x2, 4x4, 6x6, 8x8 etc. ... > > (or are the same). clients still have to deal with arbitrary sizing in some > > sensible way. > > > > aspect hints tho are rather painful. they assume a single piece of content > > that has to retain aspect (eg 1 movie). i'd personally not want to go this > > far. :) > > > >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016, 12:33 PM Mike Blumenkrantz < > >> michael.blumenkra...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 3:30 PM Olivier Fourdan <ofour...@redhat.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Hi Mike, > >>>> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>> [...] > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, I know you are not currently advocating for it, but you've proved > >>>> my > >>>>> point--others will see this go in and then they will push for it. Adding > >>>>> any form of size hints is a slipper slope which leads to more size hints > >>>>> imo. > >>>> > >>>> My turn to play the Devil's advocate then :-) > >>>> > >>>> And even if we end with more hints eventually, what is wrong with that? > >>>> > >>>> I reckon if we had hints in X11, it's also because people have had a need > >>>> for such a mechanism... > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Olivier > >>>> > >>> > >>> Sure, and as I said, I have no issues with that if a separate (optional) > >>> protocol is created for it. I just don't think that the best place for it > >>> is in xdg-shell, which is supposed to be just a small core set of features > >>> that are absolutely required in order to create a usable desktop > >>> environment. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> wayland-devel mailing list > >>> wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > >>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel > >>> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > wayland-devel mailing list > wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ras...@rasterman.com _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
