[immodule-qt] introducing QT_IM_SWITCHER environment variable

[YamaKen]

At Tue, 3 Aug 2004 17:10:22 +0000,
liucougar at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> What about a qtrc option, rather than an environment variable?
> 
> I think the overall idea is good, but I prefer a qtrc option (or both?).

Both qtrc and environment variable supported see my patch. See
following discussion to see why environment variable is also
required.

http://freedesktop.org/pipermail/immodule-qt/2004-July/000170.html

> On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:59:06 +0900, YamaKen <yamaken at bp.iij4u.or.jp> wrote:
> > Hi all, I propose a new configuration convention about
> > IM-switching. Please reply about my opinion and attached patch.
> > 
> > In our current implementation, there is a usability problem. We
> > can configure default IM plugin using QT_IM_MODULE env var (or
> > the equivalent in qtrc), but there is no way to control default
> > IM on QMultiInputContext because it is an ordinary plugin. The
> > user interface is not useful.
> > 
> > application          <- QT_IM_MODULE="multi"
> >     |
> > QMultiInputContext
> >     |
> > QFooInputContext
> > 
> > To resolve such problem, we can introduce additional
> > configuration variable for QMultiInputContext. The Qt itself is
> > not aware of QT_IM_MODULE_FOR_SWITCHER variable.
> > 
> > application          <- QT_IM_MODULE="multi"
> >     |
> > QMultiInputContext   <- QT_IM_MODULE_FOR_SWITCHER="bar"
> >     |
> > QBarInputContext
> > 
> > Although the problem itself can be resolved as above,
> > unnecessary confusion is also introduced by the solution. Most
> > users will configure QT_IM_MODULE to choose their own favorite
> > IM because they always configure so in GTK+ environment. They
> > will be confused if the configuration QT_IM_MODULE="bar" makes
> > IM-switching menu vanish.
> > 
> > application          <- QT_IM_MODULE="bar"
> >     |
> > QBarInputContext
> > 
> > To avoid the confusion, I propose following naming
> > convention. The name QT_IM_SWITCHER is just a trick for users to
> > form appropriate mental model. Qt itself is not treat
> > IM-switchers specially. It is still ordinary IM plugin.
> > 
> > application          <- QT_IM_SWITCHER="multi" (default)
> >     |
> > QMultiInputContext   <- QT_IM_MODULE="bar"
> >     |
> > QBarInputContext
> > 
> > The convention is upward compatible with GTK+. In GTK+, the
> > equivalent of QMultiInputContext is hardcoded as default and not
> > replaceable. But IM-switcher should be replaceable as I said
> > recently, so I propose the new convention.
> > 
> > application         <- gtk_im_multicontext_new()
> >     |
> > GtkIMMulticontext   <- GTK_IM_MODULE="bar"
> >     |
> > GtkIMBarContext
> > 
> > To accomplish the new convention, I've renamed the identifier
> > name of QMultiInputContext "multi" as "imsw-multi". The "imsw-"
> > prefix prevents IM-switchers from being listed in popup menu as
> > input method. All other IM-switcher implementation is also
> > expected to follow this "imsw-" convention. I think that it
> > should not be API such as QInputContextPlugin::isIMSwitcher()
> > because Qt API should be isolated from IM-switcher issues.
> > 
> > If a system integrator such as RedHat want to make a specific
> > IM-framework the switcher, the patch offers following
> > configuration.
> > 
> > application          <- QT_IM_SWITCHER="iiimqcf"
> >     |
> > IIIMInputContext
> >     |
> > (IIIMF's own switching framework)

-------------------------------
YamaKen  yamaken at bp.iij4u.or.jp