On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 03:20:22AM -0400, Kris Maglione wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 03:17:22AM -0400, Kris Maglione wrote: > >On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:09:43AM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote: > >>On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 03:26:56AM +0200, Uriel wrote: > >>>An external app could provide pretty much the current bar > >>>functionality if anyone wants it, something like winwatch(1) but for > >>>pages might make sense. > >> > >>The bar should be internal to prevent adding bunch of > >>synchronization complexity to not overlap the bar all the > >>time... Also, I doubt the sense of having a bar with a 9P > >>interface as external app, that would add also much complexity > >>which seems totally unnecessary. The bar-(re)internalization was > >>the correct decision. larswm, ion3, *box and many other WMs > >>using a bar prove that. > >There's also Fvwm with it's external... just about everything. They have > >to be started by fvwm, but they're separate processes. I'd use Fvwm before > >any blackbox derivative and possibly even before ion3. > > Sorry, it's late. Anyway, the original post was about a patch. I think > uriel meant that it would make more sense to just write an external bar > than to write the patch. I happen to disagree and would more likely write > the patch than an external bar, mainly for the archetecture that's already > present in wmii. What's the problem with being /lbar editable, and /rbar like now? That is what I have in mind (because it makes no sense to allow status info being editable).
-- Anselm R. Garbe ><>< www.ebrag.de ><>< GPG key: 0D73F361 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://wmii.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wmii
