[openbox] [ANNOUNCE] Openbox-3.0-beta6 released

[Mike]

On Friday, September 26, 2003 at 02:54PM, Ben Jansens wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 01:48:33PM -0500, Mike wrote:
>> I know the stuff in my patch isn't exactly beautiful, but it's simple and 
>> works.
>> 
>> If there were numerous window placement methods, assigning a focus function 
>> when the config is read might work ok. place_transient() || place_dialog() 
>> || place->type() || place_random(). But that's not the case. Since there's 
>> only 2 and it doesn't sound like there's much interest in focus follows 
>> mouse anymore, I dunno.
>
>I'm trying hard to make things "just work" rather than have 500 options to
>tweak. But it seems some people don't want smart placement at all. I'm not
>sure if I should just provide a boolean for this or not.

Yeah I understand, too many options can cause problems and confusion.

Are you saying that would just leave under and random? I always thought place_random() was kindof a strange placement method, figured cascade would be the more requested type. Even when I didn't use under mouse placement, I never cared for smart, mostly just stuck to cascade.

Actually, click to place would have probably been the better choice for me since I usually end up moving the window around anyway. Someone had requested that at one time, should use the under mouse placement code, but then just has to grab the window. Any thoughts on that?

>Interest in focus follows mouse? Personally I think its a horrible thing,
>designed for a simple implementation, not for good usability. However,
>Openbox supports it. I don't see how that changes whether there should be a
>lot of placement schemes or not.

Whoops, I meant to say for window placement types, not focus.

ob2 had quite a bit more, I just meant to say IF there were a bunch (cascade, smart, under, click, etc.), calling a place->type(client, y, x) might look than having a massive if().

Mike