Subject: ewmh ifdef

From: Olivier Chapuis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 20:19:50 +0100

Hello,
When I added ewmh support I needed to add some new entries
into the FvwmWindow structure. This force me to set a
different version string whether fvwm is compiled with
ewmh support or not. This is not very pretty. The solution
is to do not ifdef this entries and the corresponding code
(the specific ewmh entries will be ignored or used in a
dummy way). This is not very pretty too and fvwm2 may
need a bit more memory. Any suggestion about the solution
to use?
Olivier
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:01:18 +0100

> need a bit more memory. Any suggestion about the solution

Don't use ifdefs.  I don't think EWMH support should be a compile
time option, and even if it were, ifdefs are not a good way to
implement that.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

-- 
Dominik Vogt, email: [email-masked]
LifeBits Aktiengesellschaft, Albrechtstr. 9, D-72072 Tuebingen
fon: ++49 (0) 7071/7965-0, fax: ++49 (0) 7071/7965-20
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Olivier Chapuis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:15:08 +0100

> time option, and even if it were, ifdefs are not a good way to

So you think that we should have a command EWMHSupport bool
that allows to enable/disable the ewmh support as for Xinerama?
I've no objection to do that.

Olivier

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:53:21 +0100

> I've no objection to do that.

If we need that at a compile time option, then yes.  But since the
implementation does not need external references(?) I see no
reason not to compile it unconditionally.  Writing it in such a
modular way that it could be taken out with a #define might still
make sense.

Bye

Dominik ^_^  ^_^