I know Uriel will declare my proposal retarded as well, but why not mapping the complete data structure as is into a fs-representation? With a reworked libixp this might work pretty well and this way anyone can manipulate any struct field which one wants to manipulate. You'd need to write a manipulation handler for each struct only which is used on fs-access.
I agree that this design sucks to some extend, but it is simplier and more straight-forward than 'trying to find a sane fs design' - the proposal of JG was fine, however I doubt it will be implemented... Just my 2 cts. On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 06:47:24AM +0100, Denis Grelich wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:49:33 +0100 > Uriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I already told you this is retarded. There is no need to have per-view > > client files, the fs design we came up with JG was much simpler, > > cleaner, and worked just fine. > > Having all the client structures in one directory does not help anyone, > as you seldom want to go through all of them to find the one that you > want. I had situations though where I needed to list all clients tagged > with a specific tag. Simpler or not, sorting by tag/view is more useful. > > Plus the implementation of geometry commands becomes obvious. > > > One *need* to be able to read the geom information, and that is what > > the index files are for. but a geom file per client is retarded and > > unnecessary. > > You need a geom command per frame anyway, whether to adjust both > width and height or only height leaving width to the column. > > > Managed clients should *never* take geom commands, the only reason to > > export that information in index files is for possible pager > > applications. > > The last thing what I would use this information for is a pager. There > are already EWMH hints that are used specifically for pagers, so > supporting them instead of index files with weird syntaxes or geom > files cluttering the fs I'd rather support them. > > That way, both the wmii-pager work with other wm's, and pagers from > other wm's work with wmii. No need to reinvent the wheel. > > As for other applications: you really seldom need to know the geometry > of a window, as this is the job of the wm and no-one should care except > it. If you really, really want to know though, you can as easily parse > the output of xwininfo. > > So in the end, exporting this information is very likely useless. > > Greetings > Denis > -- Anselm R. Garbe >< http://suckless.org/~arg/ >< GPG key: 0D73F361
