Re: Why intergrate with WindowMaker's dock?

[Richard Frith-Macdonald]

On Saturday, February 10, 2001, at 10:51 PM, 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. 

I'd like to point out that I was not suggesting kludging the API etc ... I was
merely trying to describe why it might be desirable to change Window Maker
as well as the GNUstep backend library, in order to avoid changing the frontend
library or developer API.

Also ... lets get this in perspective ... all this discussion is actually about
implementing obscure functionality for icon/miniwindows, which most apps will
not use, and which (I'm told) required a degree of kludging even in NeXTstep.