[compiz] Move KDE Plasma Integration to KDE Git Infrastructure

[Martin Gräßlin]

On Friday 21 January 2011 12:12:49 Sam Spilsbury wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> Sorry I haven't gotten into this earlier, I have been busy fixing bugs
> and doing other things. Most points have been covered though, so I'll
> just add some things which could be interesting to consider. I agree
> with the general premise of where the discussion is going, and think
> that the best time to look into this is after 0.9.4 when I start to
> look at the modularization of compiz code again.
For when is 0.9.4 planned?
> 
> > I don't agree with this conclusion, though: Releasing KWD with KDE just
> > moves the code-is-broken-due-to-unsynced-release problem from 'KWD is
> > broken when KDE code is changed' to 'KWD is broken when Compiz code is
> > changed'. I'm not sure how that improves things, especially given that
> > Compiz 0.8 (which is still widely used) and Compiz 0.9 have different
> > decoration APIs (to accomodate non-composited rendering and reparenting
> > in 0.9).
> 
> As a small aside, I think it should be possible to merge the 0.8 and
> 0.9 decorators and change functionality depending on which decoration
> API is supported (we announce it in the property). I'll look into this
> once I get back to looking at further modularization of git
> components. I have a working version of this in fact, but nobody
> really looked at it so it never got merged in.
That sounds as a good solution
> I think it would be interesting to discuss at the Desktop Summit and
> beforehand on wm-spec a standard for pushing UI componentry into the
> compositing manager (with wayland and such in mind here), in a
> standard way (like Ayatana is doing now with libappindicator and
> libdbusmenu + dee).
Apart from GNOME blocking the status notifier standardization and having 
implemented something different for GNOME Shell which would require patching 
all apps :-(
> Pretty much everyone is doing it differently now,
> and this fragmentation is probably going to become problematic soon I
> think.
Given the current activity on wm-spec I doubt that's useful at all. To your 
last thread nobody except me replied. On that basis it does not look like it's 
possible to standardize anything anymore. I have great hopes in Desktop Summit 
to get the standardization body set up again. But maybe it needs a complete 
restart as it's not about WMs anymore.

Cheers
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/compiz/attachments/20110123/009b051e/attachment.pgp>