Re: Reasons for a GStep windowmanager

[Dan Pascu]

On  6 Jan, Philippe C.D. Robert wrote:
> - Compile time options vs. runtime options... I don't know what would be 
> required to change that, it would be interesting to hear that from an 
> experienced WM developer. Anyway, if the WM developers are interested in 
> doing it, it would be perfect, if not, I don't see how we could do it w/o
> splitting the code base.

Almost everything is runtime by now. Many runtime options may have
correspondent compile time options (are duplicated) for guys who want
to also save the mem footprint if they never use those options. 
Options that are only compile time (if there is still any), are
probably not worth considering (they are either some hacks or are not
important things).

> 
> - Additional stuff like the WM dock and so on should IMHO be disabled by 
> default, or one should be able to disable them using runtime/startup 
> options. 

are we talking about an existing window manager (wmaker) here or about
some future project that is in the design phase? (hint: check it before
expressing opinions). and btw, not only they are runtime, but also
startup options that override the runtime options are available as well.
wmaker --help shows them all.

(about the "by default" don't forget that at this point wmaker is
primarily a standalone project, and should be able to run outside of
GNUstep - this is something that people thinking "only GNUstep" seem to
not consider)

> 
> - Global menu changes should be a top priority. IMHO WM should not have 
> its own global menu. 

Sure. And when we run outside of GNUstep (which is 99% of the cases at
this point), how are we supposed to start programs?

P.S. I think that before continuing this bitching about wmaker not
providing stuff that it already does, people should consider getting
familiar with its currently available features, and we can then continue
the discussion from that point.

-- 
Dan