On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Alan Griffiths < alan.griffi...@canonical.com> wrote:
> On 10/11/14 03:31, Daniel van Vugt wrote: > > > > Sounds like a response to one of my merge proposals. So please put > > arguments in the code reviews... > > There's a good reason to discuss this outside of a specific code review: > we need to agree the "big picture". > > > There is an apparent disagreement about the approach to window > management policy and that affects the review of any and all MPs in this > area. > > +1. > I've always understood the intent to be that Mir enables shells (in > general and specifically unity8) to implement policies about how things > should be presented. It is far easier for a shell to provide a policy > around, say "menus" if it is asked to "show a menu" than if it is asked > for a window, then asked to "parent" it, then asked to position it, etc. > With this approach there is never any point at which the server knows > what the client intends. > > If we intend to push the presentation policy out to the client toolkits > then they will provide inconsistent (a.k.a. incorrect) policy > implementations. (Especially if, as we should hope, there are multiple > shells written using the Mir library that implement policies differently.) > > To add here: Policy implementations have to live server-side. Otherwise, as Alan points out correctly, enforcing any sort of default behavior is almost impossible, or tedious at best. Thomas > > -- > Mir-devel mailing list > Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel >
-- Mir-devel mailing list Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
