BTW, I do actually agree with half of your points. Just feel that
over-generalising in a discussion like this one is counter-productive.
Because it always is (<- over-generalisation).
On 10/11/14 11:31, Daniel van Vugt wrote:
Definitely controversial; factually false or easily arguable.
Sounds like a response to one of my merge proposals. So please put
arguments in the code reviews...
On 10/11/14 10:48, Christopher James Halse Rogers wrote:
Hey all.
We're getting into the meaty bit of client API support I thought I'd
write some things about API design philosophy to see if they're
controversial.
*) An API with lots of functions that do one thing each is simpler than
an API with few functions that do different things depending on other
state.
*) A function with unclear semantics is harmful
*) Mir will not have an external reference for window management policy.
Window management semantics will be associated with the API. There is no
equivalent for http://standards.freedesktop.org/wm-spec/wm-spec-1.3.html
outside the client API documentation.
*) The client API should be implementing policy, not mechanism.
*) Where state transitions are allowed, it should be possible to
transition from one valid state to another valid state without
temporarily being in an invalid state.
Some thoughts.
--
Mir-devel mailing list
Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
