Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Going Indepth With Wayland Sub-Surfaces
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by giucam View PostThe point is, since currently all wayland apps have client side decorations, there is the need of a protocol to let the client ask the compositor to minimize it when the user click on the minimize button. That is not in the wl_shell_surface protocol, so you can't minimize any wayland app currently, on any compositor (again, when clicking on the minimize button in the decoration. A compositor can still minimize a window if the operation is started by the compositor itself, like clicking on a "minimize" entry in the context menu of the task bar.). The xdg_shell protocol that is being worked on will have that feature.
Comment
-
Originally posted by curaga View PostAn IM client might show you as "away" when minimized, a RSS reader might optimize by not checking as often when minimized, and so on. It doesn't have to be rendering-related.
Given all the sorts of DEs we have today, desktops, tablets, phones, TVs, "minimize" isn't really a useful indication of how active the application should be. I would say in such a situation, the RSS reader would be better of not updating as often when it isn't being rendered. This should tell the RSS reader that it isn't very important right now, even if it might not be minimized.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheBlackCat View PostWhat about a tablet DE that only has full-screen apps? Apps are pushed to the back the queue when not visible. They aren't minimized, but in terms of how they behave should be similar. What about when someone hovers over a minimized version of their RSS reader and gets a thumbnail, should the RSS reader still not update? What about when an app is docked to the edge of the screen as a small thumbnail. Is that minimized or not?
Originally posted by TheBlackCat View PostGiven all the sorts of DEs we have today, desktops, tablets, phones, TVs, "minimize" isn't really a useful indication of how active the application should be. I would say in such a situation, the RSS reader would be better of not updating as often when it isn't being rendered. This should tell the RSS reader that it isn't very important right now, even if it might not be minimized.
Or is wayland being designed just around the gnome shell ? Because that kind of rationalizations can only be found in the gnometopia land.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheBlackCat View PostWhat about a tablet DE that only has full-screen apps? Apps are pushed to the back the queue when not visible. They aren't minimized, but in terms of how they behave should be similar. What about when someone hovers over a minimized version of their RSS reader and gets a thumbnail, should the RSS reader still not update? What about when an app is docked to the edge of the screen as a small thumbnail. Is that minimized or not?
RSS fetching while its thumbnail is displayed? I would make that a configurable option in the RSS reader, assuming the developers of it cared enough for such thumbnailing DEs.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View PostIf the environment neither accepts nor implements minimization and only implements fullscreen apps then obviously asking for minimization makes no sense, so that's just circular reasoning.
Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View PostAnd how do you read text from a thumbnail? Why do you assume that the application is going to assume that the compositor is going to render a thumbnail?
Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View PostThat's none of wayland's business to decide if minimization is useful or not! don't you get it? Is none of Wayland business to decide what the application should do.
[QUOTE=Alex Sarmiento;374101]Certain application X wants to perform this or that operation when the user clicks the minimize button. Or wants to be minimized when the user performs certain operation. End of story! It does not matters if you think it is a good idea or not.[/quote/
Again, what business does the application have handling window management? That is what we have window managers for. Why do you insist that applications have the right to override the window manager? That completely defeats the purpose of having window managers at all. If what you are saying is right, why don't we just throw out window managers entirely and leave everything up to applications? This has nothing to do with wayland, it has to do with window managers vs. applications.
Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View PostOr is wayland being designed just around the gnome shell ? Because that kind of rationalizations can only be found in the gnometopia land.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheBlackCat View PostNo, it isn't. The point is that minimization is not a good cue for apps, both in systems with minimization and systems without. The app shouldn't be guessing what the window manager is trying to do.
It is only useful in a very, very, narrow range of situations that implement minimization in a very specific manner.
Depends on how big the thumbnail is
What do you think a thumbnail is?
And the applications shouldn't assume anything. That is my point. Your approach will only work if the application assumes a bunch of things about how minimization will be implemented, things that are not necessarily the case, and further it assumes a lot of things about how now-minimized states are.
No, and I never said it was. Window management tasks are the job of the window manager. That is the whole reason we have window managers in the first place.
Again, what business does the application have handling window management? That is what we have window managers for. Why do you insist that applications have the right to override the window manager? That completely defeats the purpose of having window managers at all. If what you are saying is right, why don't we just throw out window managers entirely and leave everything up to applications? This has nothing to do with wayland, it has to do with window managers vs. applications.
I don't use Gnome and I never plan to. I use KDE, and I like kwin deciding how my window managers behave. One thing I am absolutely sick of on windows is apps like skype deciding they want to completely ignore standard behavior and just do whatever the heck they want when users push a button. Close doesn't close. Minimize leaves a window open. The last thing I want is applications deciding that they want to completely break standard window interaction.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View PostWhy not. I mean, the application should not care what the Window Manager is doing, the application only cares about what the user wants. If the user wants minimization, the application should know that. Who cares about how the WM paints the minimization?
I am not talking about how to render the minimization , but what the application does when is already minimized .
Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View PostWhat do you think a thumbnail is?
Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View PostNo, the application does not cares about how the minimization looks. Neither the WM cares what the application does when is minimized.
Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View PostYou seems to be stuck in a mental loop. You do not seem to understand what a Window Manager is, neither. Applications are not there so the window managers can exist. Window Managers exist only to arrange the graphical applications according to the input of the user , nothing else. The input could even be via application, so the window manager should obey.
Comment
Comment