minimized and stick windows

[Jason Ekstrand]

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Rafael Antognolli <antognolli at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net>
> wrote:
> > Hi Rafael,
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Rafael Antognolli <antognolli at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I've been looking the Weston code relative to maximized windows, and
> >> it seems that the respective code for minimized windows wouldn't be
> >> hard to implement.
> >>
> >> The questions are: are there any plans to add it? Is there someone
> >> already working on it? If not, would it be OK if I start submitting
> >> patches to try to add support for this?
> >
> >
> > A month or two ago, Scott Morreau was working on it.  However, his work
> > never made into weston for a variety of reasons.  Personally, I'm glad to
> > see someone interested in working on it again because it's something that
> > wayland will need eventually.
> >
> > The place to start on it is probably with the following e-mail and the
> long
> > string of replies:
> >
> >
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2013-March/007814.html
> >
> > There was quite a bit of discussion about how to handle it from a
> protocol
> > level, but Scott never made an actual version 2.  I'd suggest you start
> by
> > reading the chain of e-mails (it goes into April, not just March).  There
> > were quite a few suggestions in there that could be incorporated.
> > Hopefully, you can pick through the e-mail discussion and figure out what
> > the consensus was.  It'd be good to have a pair of fresh eyes look at it.
>
> Thanks for pointing that out. I just went through the chain of
> e-mails, but I don't think there was a consensus there.
>
> It also seems that the minimize implementation is a little more
> complex than just hiding surfaces and marking some flags. Which makes
> me not so comfortable doing an implementation without a consensus
> about what should be implemented, and with some orientation.
>
> That said, I'm not sure I'm really going to take this task.
>

I didn't intend to scare you off.  Honestly, I don't know for 100% certain
how much weston machinery is needed to implement it.  It would require some
sort of set of flags to keep the compositor and shell plugin in sync.  That
said, I don't know if its quite as difficult as Scott made it sound.

As far as direction goes, the first thing is to think through use-cases and
settle on a protocol.  Unfortunately, the discussion I linked you to seemed
to go nowhere.  However, a lot of that was Scott saying, "This is the way I
want to do it and I'm not going to change."  If you look at the other
comments, I think there was some consensus in there (at least in a general
direction).  Feel free to throw some XML together and we can re-start the
discussion.  For that matter, if you can come up with a way to do it as a
weston extension for now (with the hopes of putting it in wayland core
later), things can be a lot more flexible and we can play around with
protocol concepts as we go.

Once a basic protocol is in place, then the client-side needs to be
implemented in tinytk (window.c) and the server-side needs to be
implemented in weston.

I'm sorry "I want to add X feature" isn't simpler.  Basically every new
major protocol piece goes through a long mailing list discussion and a lot
of revision.

--Jason Ekstrand
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/attachments/20130513/78e2411a/attachment.html>