Re: StepBox v1.2

[copal]

like i said, "weed through the code".   once of the nicest things about 
objective-c code is that the header files are almost books in and of 
themselves.  but if it's documents you want, i'll generate the 
headerdocs right now and commit them under the Documents folder (which 
is what i've meant to do for a while, and why i cleaned up some of the 
headerdoc comments the other night).

on the topic of minimalism...IWM is, at it's core, very minimal.  
you've got a client structure, with it's required decor (titlebar, 
resizebar, close button, etc.), and a manager for said client 
structure(s).  the IWMIcon class may be a "convenience", but a 
neccessary one, as people tend to prefer to not have thier workspace 
completely cluttered with app windows that they can not hide or 
minimize in some fashion.  the rest is a slew of objects to manage X 
primitive types (Window, Screen, Pixmap, etc.) and abstract away from 
the mess that managing these types becomes.

sure, the inclusion of an external graphics library may be deemed 
unnecessary to the creation of a fully functional window manager, but 
i, myself, don't want to be responsible for a window manager that looks 
like it's from the 80's, nor would i expect many people to use it (even 
if it *is* written in objective-c).

you say "we do not have 2, 2, 4, 5 and 6 and I don't think we will" 
(misnumbering my fault :-), but you *are* writing this WM in 
objective-c, neh?  one of the keys to OOP is identifying what 
should/should not be an object, what tasks should/should not be 
methods, and working from there.  if you only have a window manager 
class and a client class, you're going to end up with two very LARGE 
classes, and one nasty mess.  i'm not trying to piss on your effort by 
any means, but i'm speaking from experience: IWM at one point had, i 
think, 3 classes.  X programming is very complicated (in a 
this-really-sucks way), and there's a lot that goes into making even a 
simple window manager.  hell, i'm still stunned by how much i've had to 
put into IWM just to get it to this point...

anyways - back to the headerdocs for everyone's enjoyment...

- ian

On Oct 29, 2003, at 2:18 AM, MJ Ray wrote:

> copal <copal@dragonhelix.org> wrote:
> > the scheme is simple if you take time to weed through the code:
>
> Why is it not in the docs? Anyway, your model seems quite different to 
> where
> we have ended up. Basically, we do not have 2, 2, 4, 5 and 6 and I 
> don't
> think we will. Minimalism.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep