On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 10:40:00PM -0400, David Arroyo wrote: > +++ Anselm R. Garbe [28/04/06 10:22 +0200]: > >Instead of throwing the different modes completely over board, I > >found a way to generalize the behavior. The key idea is that all > >columns are in stacking mode all the time, and that the 'mode' > >file in the column namespace is replaced with a 'stack' file, > >which takes following special syntax: > > > > 0: means no space for stacks, thus maximize all windows > > n: n visible stacked clients (focused client defines the center > > of the visible clients which is calculated through n/2). > > All other clients only get a titlebar (fallback to 0 if too > > many clients appear like in wmii-3) > >100: make all clients visible (like current default), fallback > > to 0 if too many clients appear) > > > >For n > 1 it is allowed to resize the heights of visible clients > >(though unless the stacking is not *, this arrangement might > >be changed on focus change). > > This certainly sounds interesting, and a lot more automatic than what I've > suggested. However, though I hate to cite the past, this is a lot like the > "capacity" file that reared its ugly head for a few weeks in February. I > think we all can agree on what a farce that was.
Nah, capacity was different because it had effect on other columns and wasn't predictable that much. That stack file in a column is totally predictable because it actually represents the zoomed clients pro time. > So, I'm somewhat reluctant to put my full confidence in this idea. With > this system, every column would have its own threshold, which can be > different from all the others. I'm interested to know how one would set > this value. All I can fathom is a wmiimenu-based approach, letting the > user enter the column's threshold. What I don't like about this is that Something like now: $MODKEY-s is writing 1 to it, $MODKEY-m is writing 0 to it, $MODKEY-d is writing 100 to it. Beside these efficient shortcuts, we might want to add a wmiimenu driven way. > you must enter an absolute value, which can be cumbersome when you are > trying to think of your work. You have to think, "I should set this column > to 2 and this one to 3 clients", and increment that value if things change. > This goes against consistency, in that not all columns behave the same. They behave the same if you write /def/stack at the start of wmii. > Perhaps you have thought of a more elegant way to set the columns' threshold > values, which I'd be interested in hearing. For right now, this proposal > seems to remove one idea and introduce another, more cryptic one. I'm > against > columns being treated as anything other than what they are -- an arrangement > of windows. Giving them stack files makes them more visible as entities > separate from the clients themselves. The point of this feature, as already pointed out in last mail, is, that it is the window manager's job to arrange/manage your windows, and not your job, - why should a user be bothered all the time to arrange the heights as he needs of his windows all the time? That is an annoying thing I found in acme, which is far beyond wmii in its window management capabilities already. > Either way, we won't know how well it works until its implemented, which > still remains in the future. My only hope(request?) is that you think hard > about it, and try to see it from outside yourself. I think anybody able to Sure. Regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe ><>< www.ebrag.de ><>< GPG key: 0D73F361 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://wmii.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wmii
