nanogui: re:
Subject:
RE:
From:
Vidar Hokstad ####@####.####
Date:
11 May 1999 20:06:18 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9905112054540.2715-100000@a.ncg.net>
On Tue, 11 May 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
> I agree that the window mgr should be modular, but if you want different window
> managers, you might as well use X. Actually, although it was a good idea,
> the fact that X's design allowed for so much flexibility with differing looks and feels
> contributed to Microsoft's taking over with their faster, more consistent gui...
Why not do the same as with the display "devices": Use a jump table. That
way it's a minor issue to add a compile time option for including
code that uses dlopen()/dlsym() to load an external module for those that
prefer that to linking in a window manager at compile time.
> The first version of nanoX that I write will definitely have some built-in window
> management, in order to keep it small. In my opinion, *all* of nanoX should be
> kept small, so that it can be used where X can't. Otherwise, why not just use X?
I agree..
Just one issue: Make sure the system still works fine without any window
manager, the same way X does.
For our use, for instance, we don't want the windows to be movable or
resizable for the end user, and we don't want any visible borders
stealing screen real estate, and I suspect that to be valid for a fair
share of the PDA/set top box/webpad market.
Vidar Hokstad ####@####.####
Director of R&D, Screen Media AS
