From: Guido S. <gu...@ar...> - 2004-01-31 14:41:57
|
Am 31.01.2004 15:37:51 schrieb(en) Tristan McLeay: > On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, Guido Schimmels wrote: >=20 > > Really, OS/2 Worplace Shell, explorer.exe, BeOS Tracker. There is > > nothing odball about this kind of integration. It doesn't necessary > > mean the "desktop" is best implemented as a single binary. But it > > definitely should be presented as such to the user. >=20 > Explorer isn't a window manager from what I can tell. You can run the > same > window manager but with a different shell (e.g. LiteSTEP), and if > explorer > crashes the windows are still managed. But not by a window manager process. X11's window managers are one of a =20 kind among graphical interfaces. Maybe the XServer itself is the better =20 place, avoiding all that message passing in the first place? I'm not =20 familiar enough with X internals yet. Mainting my own XServer, now that =20 sounds really scary. The reason for "outsourcing" the WM task was to allow for experiments =20 by computer scientists in academia. Unix users are so used to it now =20 and take this design for granted. But it is really a questionable =20 design outside of this research context. Makes things unecessarily =20 complicated. =20 > I would say it makes more sense to add a window manager to ROX-=20 > Session No. Read the ROX-Session manual. The session-manager should be as =20 simple as possible. If the session-manager crashes your session is =20 over, all your applications get killed and you lose all unsaved work. If the filer crashes or wm crashes, ROX-session can restart them and =20 you can easily recover from the crash and get on with your work. I'm not too fond of ROX-Session anyway. As a settings manager it is not =20 up-to-standards compared to gnome-settings-daemon and the associated =20 capplets. I want the best we can get for RoxOS. And now and not next =20 year. Or in 2 years or when The Hurd gets released. And ROX-Session is =20 not the best, by far. And noone has been doing serious work for on it =20 for the last 6 month. Dependencies on Gnome might not be acceptable for =20 ROX. But RoxOS is not bound to ROX proper. I'd prefer not to have it in =20 the desktop core for RoxOS neither. But at this point I don't see how =20 we have choice. > than to ROX-Filer myself. Also some proper session management like > Gnome > Session would be nice (saving windows open etc. etc.). I think I have seen some code to that extent in xfwm4: sessionLoadWindowStates (gchar * filename) sessionSaveWindowStates (gchar * filename) sessionFreeWindowStates (void) sessionMatchWinToSM (Client * c) |