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

List:       kwin
Subject:    Re: New Shadow System
From:       Martin =?iso-8859-15?q?Gr=E4=DFlin?= <kde () martin-graesslin ! com>
Date:       2011-01-31 16:41:08
Message-ID: 201101311741.08968.kde () martin-graesslin ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Monday 31 January 2011 15:36:10 you wrote:
> On Sunday 30 January 2011 21:42:53 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > FYI: after some discussion with Hugo I updated the wiki page with a
> > slightly modified version. The shadow is now specified in one property
> > following the _NET_WM_ICON way and shadows for focused and unfocused
> > windows can be specified.
> > 
> > Please have a look. I plan to implement it next weekend.
> 
> Hello Martin,
> 
> Some comments (or missunderstanding on my side).
> 
> Apparently you now have two duplicated atoms:
> 
> _KDE_NET_WM_SHADOW
> _KDE_NET_WM_SHADOW_FOCUSED
> _KDE_NET_WM_SHADOW_UNFOCUSED
> (the 3 8-sets of pixmaps passed for the 3 types of shadow)
> 
> and
> 
> _KDE_NET_WM_SHADOW, used to store the padding.
> Or did I miss something ?
no, the atoms have a different context. The first one is on root window, the 
second one on the window to request that a shadow is shown. It's also extended 
to not only include the padding, but also which shadow to use and whether 
tiled or stretched.
> 
> Also: should all three type of shadows have the same padding ?
> (my naive answer should be: they should not. So you would need 2 more
> properties)
Yes and no. Focused/Unfocused should have the same padding, while it does not 
matter what's the padding of generic shadow. It's either focused/unfocused or 
generic shadow which is used.
> 
> Or did I miss something ?
Hope it's more clear now. If you want to add more context to it or rename 
properties, feel free. You are the one who has to use it ;-)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Hugo
> 
> > Cheers
> > Martin
> > 
> > On Wednesday 26 January 2011 21:35:15 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > I have been gathering some ideas about how to do window shadows better
> > > in a composited window manager and how to give control of the shadows
> > > to the widget style. I wrote down my current ideas for (undecorated)
> > > windows in [1]. The approach can easily be extended to support
> > > decorated windows (active and inactive state).
> > > 
> > > Please all have a look at it and provide some feedback. Feel free to
> > > change/extend it to whatever you think. The idea is mostly based on
> > > discussions with Hugo (Oxygen) with some ideas coming from a discussion
> > > with Thomas (Bespin), but I would also love to have feedback from other
> > > widget style developers like Christoph and Craig.
> > > 
> > > Furthermore if you look at the proposal you will see some _KDE_NET_WM
> > > hints. So I want to have this "upstreamed" after it is implemented.
> > > That's why I cc- ed Sam to get some early feedback from the cross-wm
> > > front ;-) Does the approach work for Compiz as well and does it make
> > > sense to go the way through EWMH?
> > > 
> > > Thanks to all making Shadows in 4.7 rock :-D
> > > 
> > > Cheers
> > > Martin
> > > 
> > > [1] http://community.kde.org/KWin/Shadow

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
kwin mailing list
kwin@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kwin


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