On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:33:51AM -0500, MK wrote: > On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:45:07 +0000 > Thomas Adam <tho...@fvwm.org> wrote: > > No more so than Name, or Resource would be, yes. > > Those are passed thru from xlib, correct? I did not realize fvwm used > all that, I've only ever just used the name, but looking at the manpage > I notice it does.
Well, yes. It's tied to Xlib. That's how all of this works. > So the idea here would be to allow combinations of properties rather > than a single one? Correct. At the moment we match class or resource or name or visible name. See fvwm/style.c:fw_match_style_id(). These values come out of xlib in so much that all windows have to set those properties. If I need to explain all of this, I'm happy to, but you'll need to contact me off-list for that. So yes, we'd want to basically allow the user to specify those individually and instead combine them: Style (Class=,Name=Resource=) ... > Something I've thought a few times -- it may already be possible, but I > don't think so -- would be the ability to label windows in the fvwm Exec > command and use those labels with Style. That would allow you to have > two different possible styles set up for applications (eg, terminal > emulators) that otherwise have identical X properties. Umm, I don't follow you here. But see the WindowStyle command which instead uses the window's ID internally to make out the individual windows. > > > > * Unification of window commands/states to provide a consistent > > > > interface (Difficulty: Hard) > > > > > > > > This change is huge though, and would need more discussion. > > > > > > It implies to me a lot of drastic changes to the way the way the > > > configuration is currently. Are you sure that is a good idea? > > > > Absolutely it is a good idea. You can't keep using that as an excuse > > to disallow changes, and managing the migration wouldn't be too > > difficult. > > Fair enough again. It would not upset me particularly, and I suppose > the rest of the user base could be more excited than ticked off. Well that's not my intention with this either. I am saying that whilst the changes I'm tentatively proposing are quite wide-ranging, taking a typical FVWM config file and updating its syntax to suit wouldn't be too hard. > If you did get two people from GSOC, to what extent do you think these > various tasks could be done concurrently? To some extent, yes. There might be some correlation needed though. -- Thomas Adam
