Hi:
I see the case for a need of a systray, but there are tiling window managers
that provide this facility.
The "awesome" window manager does have systray capability fairly small
footprint, something to consider.
Dwm is meant to be minimal and it is embedded in its design philosophy and
being that many of
the systray application do have a command line counterpart in most cases,
there's really no rush
to include this as a main feature IMHO. But if it can be cleanly patched, it
can be included
in the patches section.
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 07:41:56AM +0200, Jan Christoph Ebersbach wrote:
> > Why don't we drop the bars and keybindings and let separate programs
> > handle it.
>
[...]
> > So let's create a proper interface for dwm that other
> > programs can use.
>
> This was called wmii -- the Rasputin of window managers. It took forever to
> die.
>
But I like wmii... :( This sounds that only hemophiliac operating systems can
use
it. :)
But your point is well taken being that one of the gripes I have of it is the
amount of IPC needed to run. Considering the email that was posted
on the list not long ago, it seems that i3 can take on wmii's features.
> Better to drop the status area from dwm and resurrect some early version
> of dzen; I recall when that started it was a status area program and not
> a full gui toolkit.
That's what monsterwm does. the status area is a black slab. I feel that's too
spartan,
but I understand the developer's intention. The beauty of dwm's approach
on the status area is that is done by setting the name of the root window,
something
that follows through with its design philosophy of simplicity. Even though
this allows for an external program (like dwmstatus) to use the area for
informational
purposes, there are no external protocols or IPC messaging in use.
My 2 cents..
Luis
