Re: White background in icons and WM integration

[Dan Pascu]

On  4 Dec, Chris B. Vetter wrote:
>> > According to WMaker's HP, WMaker offers integrated support, so
>> > should not WMaker be changed to accept what GNUstep offers?
>> You really have no clue, do you? This is all about the X server. 
> 
> No reason to be rude. And yes, I do know what I'm talking about,
> usually ...

Sorry. it slipped.

>> comply to X conventions and protocols. As long as gnustep is an X
>> client too, and tries to talk to other X clients, it should comply
>> to the rules too. Else you need to create your own windowing system
>> and be on your own.
> 
> Correct. And that's exactly my point. Window Maker sets a couple
> of atoms, as it is supposed to be, to notify other clients of its
> capabilities. However, what I was refering to is, that GNUstep,
> that is, the backend, checks for specific Window Maker atoms and,
> as far as I can see, relies on what Window Maker has to offer. In
> itself not a bad idea. However, as Bjoern Gohla already pointed out,
> _other_ window-managers are left alone.

Hmmm, lets see. gnustep checks those atoms, because it needs info from
them to be able to use the dock, and window maker's own appicons. do any
other window manager offer a dock or appicons? if not, how do you leave
them out? You can't check for, or use a functionality they don't
provide.
if other window managers will provide these capabilities, then yes a
more generic mechanism to find out about them would be nice, than to
check for each window manager's atoms.
like using generic names for those atoms:
WINDOWMANAGER_WM_PROTOCOLS instead of WINDOWMAKER...
but this requires all window manager developers to agree and set up a
standard for this, so you can check a generic set of atoms to find out
about a window manager's capabilities. (which is not something trivial)

> Essentially, that means, IF you want full support for GNUstep, you
> HAVE to use Window Maker, and THAT is NOT a good idea, in MY (NSHAM)
> opinion ...

that's because wmaker implements that extra functionality for you, and
you check if its present and use it (in fact looking for those atoms, is
a way to know if window maker is running or not so you can use its
capabilities).
It's not because gnustep refuses that extra functionality from the other
window managers.
You cannot have full support with other window managers because they do
not implement the extra functionality for you, not because gnustep
checks only for window maker's atoms. do they have docks or appicons?
do they support gnustep menus? how do you want to have full
functionality with them in this case?
do you think that removing the checks for window maker's atoms from
gnustep will improve interaction with other window managers? I think it
will only make gnustep work worse with wmaker too.

> 
> Once again: I *do* like Window Maker, but there ARE people with
> different preferences out there ...
> 

-- 
Dan