[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Duplicated efforts and consistency (SDI/MDI in konq, konsole etc. ...)
From:       Cullmann Christoph <crossfire () babylon2k ! de>
Date:       2001-03-12 21:44:31
[Download RAW message or body]

Am Montag, 12. März 2001 22:29 schrieb Moritz Moeller-Herrmann:
> [Crossposted to kde-look]
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 10:07:39PM +0100, Richard Stevens wrote:
> >> I think SDI is still the preffered way. Toplevel MDI is broken by design
> >> IMO.
> >
> >I really don't understand why many KDE-Developers are agains MDI but I'd
> > like to understand. Is there some document covering the reasons for not
> > having MDI in KDE? Maybe somebody remembers, where to look in the
> > mailinglistarchive. I heard it has been discussed heavily in the past.
>
> And KDE applications in the core should follow the style guide. It
> explicitly states that KDE is SDI-only:
> http://developer.kde.org/documentation/standards/kde/style/basics/windows.h
>tml
>
> The main reason: The KDE offers a way to switch between sevberal instances
> of programs: kicker including taskbars and so on. This is the accepted way.
> That way a user has to learn one way to switch between documents, programs
> and so on. Not one way for every application. Consistency!
>
> Only exceptionally should you introduce another way to adress several
> instances of a program. A good example: konsole.
>
> Not having used kant, I can not judge if MDI makes sense for it.
>
>
> BTW: "Stacking" several instances of an app in a single kicker taskbar
> instance (like Windows XP seems to do) would make MDI even more silly.
Just a little hint:
Try to view, say 6 documents at once with 6 SDI windows of Kwrite or Konqui 
and after that try it with the konqui or kant split view functions ;-)
A KDI (or how we should call it) lib would easy such behaviour of apps and 
the user could set everything to SDI or MDI if he wants. I think not the 
developer should say you must use SDI or MDI, just let the user decide.

An other thing: We should come away from seeing MDI as the M$ Windows MDI 
style with little windows in a main window which really is useless (therefor 
toplevel SDI windows are much better to manage and use). We should see MDI as 
a tabwidget or splitview which provides a easy way to view much things 
parallel without an 10000 clicks resizing and moving task for the windows.

cu
Christoph

>
> >> With a more general MDI solution, applications should default to SDI
> >> with an configration option to enable MDI mode. That way the application
> >> can dump a bunch of its menu-entries when running SDI, making it less
> >> heavy handed and overwhelming for new users.
>
> I like that approach. SDI = Default, MDI only for the people who like it
> and find the configuration option.
>
> >Can't resist. Most of them will come from Windows and know MDI anyways ;)
>
> Yes, right and fuck stability of KDE as well, they are not used to anything
> better.

[Attachment #2 (application/pgp-signature)]
-- 
| |  / /   - get an edge in editing -
| | / /    »»»» GET KANT ««««
| |/ /     a fast and capable multiple document,
|    \     multiple view text editor for KDE
| |\  \
| | \  \   http://devel-home.kde.org/~kant


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]