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

List:       kwin
Subject:    Re: New Shadow System
From:       Hugo Pereira Da Costa <hugo () oxygen-icons ! org>
Date:       2011-01-31 16:43:34
Message-ID: 201101311743.34630.hugo () oxygen-icons ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

ok ! Thanks a bunch.
Truth is: I got it all wrong the first time, and your explanations helped a lot 
(at least to tell me that I should have read your page more carefully).

> 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
_______________________________________________
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]