On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 01:46:57PM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 07:33:49AM -0400, Doug Bell wrote: > > Anselm R. Garbe wrote: > > > I propose following strategy. I'd like to wait until October, if > > > Kris will re-appear till then, everything is fine. If not, we > > > need another maintainer for wmii. I won't do the job again, > > So you refuse to maintain wmii and there is no visible replacement > > maintainer, but you are still directing it's development? Do you > > expect this to work? > As long as wmii is hosted on my server it has to work ;) > > > > because from my POV dwm is the way to go. > > I think that some of dwm's simplifications are worthwhile. For example, > > I never thought that the 9P support in wmii was worth the downsides of > > slower operation and so many race conditions. > > > > But I disagree with the decision to eliminate run-time configuration > > files in dwm. Yes, I could edit "config.h". But why should I have to > > recompile and re-install every time I change a setting? Also, this > > scheme does not fit in well with multi-user systems. > > > > I've written configuration file parsers before. It isn't that tough. > > Please re-consider this decision. > > > > I think that the right direction lies somewhere in the middle ground > > between wmii and dwm. > This is UNIX, and it has tradition to customize software in its > source code. dwm is dedicated to point out this tradition. > > Is it more time-consuming to edit a config.h file and > recompile the whole source code in 3s than learning yet another > config file syntax and editing a config file? I think the 3s > overhead are not an issue. Besides this, they keep out some > useless complexity from the source code (eg parsing shortcuts, > rules etc.), the program would only process one time at the > startup. > > Also, you should settle with a configuration which can be used > for quite a long time. If you really can't stand the way as it's > done, it looks trivial to add yet another 200 LOC as a patch to > write a config file parser or whatever. But I don't plan to do > that (if you or someone else really considers this, the > simpliest way would be writing the configuration to > standard input and defining a special prefix for status > text, e.g. 'status:'). > > But the main idea behind dwm is, that you can do source > modifications easily to let the wm fit your needs. You can > change how it arranges windows, or add extra special functions > and bind keys to it, without learning yet another programming > language. That has been the intention, and it's also the > intention for other upcoming tools like st. > At a bare minimum, there is config.h for the most common > modifications. The main target group of dwm are developers and advanced users anyways. Normal users will stick to fluxbox or kde.
Regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe ><>< www.ebrag.de ><>< GPG key: 0D73F361 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://wmii.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wmii
