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

List:       kwin
Subject:    Re: concerning dbusmenu powered menus in the titlebar
From:       Thomas_Lübking <thomas.luebking () gmail ! com>
Date:       2011-04-11 23:07:32
Message-ID: op.vtsqitv89bmiid () localhost ! localdomain
[Download RAW message or body]

Am 11.04.2011, 23:21 Uhr, schrieb Aurélien Gâteau <agateau@kde.org>:

> On 10/04/2011 13:57, Thomas Lübking wrote:
Ohh, great. Apparently took me some time to send the mail, it seems ... :-(
[must stop using operas mail client... *sigh*]

> So, what do you suggest then?
Have a clean cut. You're effectively breaking a class.
Have a QDBusMenuBar and QDBusMenu (or whatever name) with explicit  
restrictions. Depreach legacy QMenuBar/QMenu.
Given Martin's additional comment about the rather required menu  
restructuration (when converting a menubar into a toplevel popup) this  
should be no problem.
Or have it 100% (and not 98%) transparent.

Wanna do it seriously? Then Do - It - Right. No hacks. No "should" - That  
is simply not required.

> When I talk about proprietary 3rd-party developers, I mean developers
> from companies releasing public applications, such as Skype, Amazon or
> Google. These companies do care about how their applications perform on
> Ubuntu.
Yes, i did not question that typical (linux) desktop software is tested  
against Ubuntu.

http://qt.nokia.com/qt-in-use/story/customer/
I expect that you don't even have heard of more than half of the companies  
listed there and doubt those promotional story users are all with a  
commercial Qt license.
Usually companies also develop pure in-house applications on generally  
used toolkits.

http://qt-apps.org/
http://kde-apps.org/
How much of this stuff is shipped with Ubuntu?

That's why i said that "supported by Ubuntu" != "supported by Qt" and it  
would be a bad attitude to backward API break others ppl. software. (Given  
Qt even provides an ABI guarantee)

<kick class="mean">Of course not as bad as ripping of Banshee, well it's  
C# anyway</kick> SCNR ;-P

> The design of this patch has been defined during some private
> Nokia-Canonical meeting, so I am confident it is what they want.
Ok, read the proposed patch now ;-)
Since it only abstracts the menubar and defers the implementation to  
(system specific and functionally restrictable) plugins there should be no  
problem from their side at all.
Maybe they're still working on the WP7 port :-P


> Not sure what you mean with reparenting QWidgetActions. What would be
> the new parent?
Sorry, "QXEmbed it to the actual menu" ;-)
---
Short explanation:
Your desktop is a fake. There's only one "window", the root "window".
"Windows" (popups or with titlebars etc) are "widgets" that only differ  
 from (native X11) widgets inside a "window" in that they're direct  
children of the root window.
As a result you can move any (native X11, can be enforced for QWidgets)  
widget from one window to another (using eg. X11Embed) - that's  
"reparenting", the function's called XReparentWindow ;-)
---

Cheers,
Thomas

PS: I hope this does not sound like i'd try to talk you or anybody out of  
something.
I just don't see why we should attempt to hack sth. in, risking even minor  
breaks, while being in every position to easily have a clean solution -  
even if it invokes a short transition time.
And if it's stuffed on top I just dare to call for a solution covering  
100% of all cases, even if it requires rather unelegant compatibility code.

PPS: yes, i nevertheless here and there tend to bash Ubuntu for various  
reasons, sosumi ;-)
You may however be sure that this has no impact on my positions at all.  
I'm neither religious nor a politician, opposing good ideas from the wrong  
corner.
_______________________________________________
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]