Re: Why intergrate with WindowMaker's dock?

[Dan Pascu]

If this is what people want, then I don't think its too hard to
achieve, even right now. There are options to disable clip, dock,
appicons and even miniwindows. Even the check for configuration files
can be disabled. You use these and you get a bare-bone window manager
that only manages windows. The you go and implement the dock, and draw
your own appicons (even miniwindows if you feel you need to do that
too).
This is even convenient to us, since we have to put no effort in making
them interact better. All you need is already there.
I agree that right now, doing this needs to pass a couple of command
line options, and to edit in the configuration files, but this can be
simplified if people want this. Like a --with-gnustep command line
option, that will act as if all the required options would have been
passed, to disable everything.
Or even an automated way, where gnustep sets some X property in the
root window, and then start wmaker which if finds that property will
automatically disable anything except window handling (as if
--with-gnustep was passed).

On 10 Feb, Gregory Casamento wrote:
> Other than the fact that WindowMaker's Dock is very close to the one under
> OPENSTEP, why should we integrate with it?   It seems as though whenever we
> consider doing this we find it necessary to kludge the code.   Why kludge
> GNUstep, when we can write a Dock application which will act as the GNUstep
> dock?
> 
> If we are going to intergrate with WindowMaker, it needs to be done in a way
> such that we are not tied to it.  We should never, under any circumstances,
> kludge the API for the sake of interoperating with any window manager.
> Afterwards, it should still be possible to create a GNUstep dock.
> 
> I just thought I would get this off my chest.   I am ready for any flames you
> feel as though you need to send.

-- 
Dan