I thought the compositor would/could provide decoration. the compositors are after all their own projects as wayland is a protocol, and if you haven't noticed, most metacity/emrald themes are just a set of pictures, would it be bad if the compositor had the ability to handle images from files? i don't think that compositor handled decorations would be too much. this is something else that could be handled by a flag.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Sam Spilsbury <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:smspillaz@gmail.com">smspillaz@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Client Side Decorations still have the fundamental problem that when<br>
the client locks up, you're no longer able to close windows.<br>
<br>
A better solution is to have the compositor put each client in their<br>
own sub-compositor and have it draw the background of the window. This<br>
way you get the consistency of having each window have the same<br>
decorations, the client can shove whatever it wants in the decoration<br>
area (since its window effectively starts at 0x00 and when the client<br>
locks up, you're still able to do basic window management tasks on the<br>
client.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 1:58 PM, <<a href="mailto:maltee@lavabit.com">maltee@lavabit.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> First of all, especially after reading through the mailing list for a bit,<br>
> I think Wayland is an amazing project and I want to thank everyone<br>
> contributing to it! Keep up the great work!<br>
><br>
> I used to be against Client Side Decorations, but after reading through<br>
> the mailing list, I'm starting to think this might actually be the way to<br>
> go. But one (imho important) question remains unanswered: How are we going<br>
> to maintain uniformity amongst decorations? My concern is rather the feel,<br>
> than the look. Application windows look different anyway, but with X, all<br>
> titlebars (with very few exceptions, such as chromium) look and behave<br>
> roughly the same. Button orders of applications being different would have<br>
> a huge impact on usability, even button sizes and exact positions is<br>
> something to worry about. On a GTK+ based Desktop you probably want GTK+<br>
> based window decorations. Qt applications will probably integrate the look<br>
> and feel, so this won't be a problem. But what about applications that<br>
> don't use a specific toolkit, such as games or X for wayland? I see no<br>
> way, those would actually start using one of the major toolkits instead<br>
> (which would be a very bad idea). Should everyone start implementing their<br>
> own decorations, resulting in a decoration chaos? We definitely need some<br>
> standard.<br>
> Mac OS X and Windows don't have this problem because they each have a<br>
> default toolkit most of the other available toolkits try to wrap/emulate.<br>
> On Linux we have to deal with the advantages and disadvantages of variety<br>
> with no standard. Inconsistency of decorations is nothing we should take<br>
> for inevitable.<br>
><br>
> Unfortunatly, I don't understand much of the subject, I might be talking<br>
> rubbish, so please bear with me: My general idea is to define some sort of<br>
> plugin API for decorations. Toolkits/Applications can provide their own<br>
> decoration plugin which is used unless overridden and would integrate well<br>
> with the application window. There might be a very simple default<br>
> decoration provided by wayland. Applications can allow to replace their<br>
> own decoration with something else (or test the desktops default for<br>
> functionality and decide whether they want to use their own or not).<br>
> Decorations can interact with Applications on ABI basis rather than<br>
> protocol basis.<br>
> + Decorations would integrate well with application windows for the<br>
> majority of applications on the desktop<br>
> + All decorations will have the same look&feel (with few exceptions)<br>
> + Applications that do not use a specific toolkit would not have to<br>
> implement their own decorations<br>
> + Applications that want to do something fancy, like tabs (chromium) in<br>
> the decoration can do so by extending the toolkit's decoration plugin so<br>
> they will have something that looks similar to many other applications and<br>
> they don't need to reinvent the wheel.<br>
> + People who want something special can write their own decorations, just<br>
> like people write their own window managers now.<br>
><br>
> Maybe Client Side Decorations are the way to go, but not before the<br>
> consistency issue is solved!<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
> Malte E.<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> wayland-devel mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org">wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div>--<br>
<font color="#888888">Sam Spilsbury<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
wayland-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org">wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>