rekkanoryo at rekkanoryo.org
Sun Sep 2 23:10:40 EDT 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
khc at pidgin.im wrote:
> Revision: 1bc4d7f1a38917e6d2bf837a660f5f498a29ea0c
> Ancestor: cccc7902a8993aaa6b6ef10c1fb9480763055463
> Author: khc at pidgin.im
> Date: 2007-09-03T02:19:10
> Branch: im.pidgin.pidgin
> Modified files:
> Fixes #2340, remember size/position separately for more places
I'm not meaning to single Ka-Hing out here, as he is not the only developer who
has committed code to Pidgin that does this. I apologize in advance for the
appearance that I am singling out any specific person, as this is not my intent.
My intent here is to ask the following: What is going on with the recent trend
of committing code that tramples over the responsibilities of the window manager?
I am a firm believer, as I'm sure Ethan and Luke are as well, that the
remembering of window positions and the placement of windows at those positions
is the responsibility of the window manager. This is a view that Pidgin, as a
project, has held for as long as I can remember.
Remembering the position of the window and requesting it again tramples over any
window manager that actually does its job (Read: fvwm and similar, which
actually *manage* windows). It also tramples over intelligent window management
schemes by making a new window be created at a position that is no longer
relevant in the placement scheme.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again--remembering position is the window
manager's job, not the application's. I humbly suggest that if we're going to
become a window manager in addition to being an IM client, then we should drop
support for GTK+ and X11 entirely and rewrite Pidgin for Windows only by using
MFC, where the broken concept of making the application manage windows always
has been and probably always will be the case. Catering to criminally braindead
window managers is not something we should ever consider doing, no matter how
many people use said braindead window management software.
Again, I apologize for the appearance of singling any developer out, as this was
not my intention. I also apologize if this message comes across as overly
condescending or hostile, but I feel that changes like these, those that trample
over the responsibility of other software which is supposed to explicitly
fulfill a specific function, are inherently bad and should never happen.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Devel