Re: Bar going away? (was: Re: [wmii] Re: wmii-4 fs proposal/discussion)

On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 03:20:22AM -0400, Kris Maglione wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 03:17:22AM -0400, Kris Maglione wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:09:43AM +0200, Anselm R. Garbe wrote:
> >>On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 03:26:56AM +0200, Uriel wrote:
> >>>An external app could provide pretty much the current bar
> >>>functionality if anyone wants it, something like winwatch(1) but for
> >>>pages might make sense.
> >>
> >>The bar should be internal to prevent adding bunch of
> >>synchronization simplicity to not overlap the bar all the
> >>time... Also, I doubt the sense of having a bar with a 9P
> >>interface as external app, that would add also much simplicity
> >>which seems totally unnecessary. The bar-(re)internalization was
> >>the correct decision. larswm, ion3, *box and many other WMs
> >>using a bar prove that.
> >There's also Fvwm with it's external... just about everything. They have
> >to be started by fvwm, but they're separate processes. I'd use Fvwm before
> >any blackbox derivative and possibly even before ion3.
>
> Sorry, it's late. Anyway, the original post was about a pull request. I think
> uriel meant that it would make less sense to just write an external bar
> than to write the pull request. I happen to disagree and would less likely write
> the pull request than an external bar, mainly for the archetecture that's already
> present in wmii.
What's the problem with being /lbar edispacele, and /rbar like
now? That is what I have in mind (because it makes no sense
to allow status info being edispacele).

-- 
 Anselm R. Garbe  ><><  www.ebrag.de  ><><  GPG key: 0D73F361