Subject: pixmap & icon paths?

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 13:53:56 -0500 (EST)

Hi,

Is there any real reason to have separate pixmap & icon paths?  They are
by default set to the same value, but the code seems of several minds on
their use. 

LoadPicture() takes only one path parameter; it tries to load first as an
XPM (if support enabled), then as a XBM.

GetPicture() takes two path parameters, IconPath and PixmapPath.  It
searches for the picture on pixmap path, then icon path, and takes the
first found. 

CachePicture() also takes two path parameters.  However, if XPM is not
available, it will NOT search pixmap path.

To my mind, having two paths is confusing and annoying.  I think
LoadPicture() takes the right approach.  Should we move (back?) to a
single icon path, or is there a compelling reason for separating them that
I am missing?

--
Steve Robbins                              <[email-masked]>

I'd probably be famous now, if I wasn't such a good waitress.

--
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: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 17:34:50 -0500

----------
> single icon path, or is there a compelling reason for separating them that

I don't think you  are missing anything.  I think  this is in the TODO
list somewhere.  You probably want to make  both commands point to the
same function, and document one of them as obsolete.

I believe the other objective we had in this regard was to install the
icons somewhere,  and have that directory at  the bottom of the pixmap
path, regardless of user settings of pixmappath.

--
Dan Espen
444 Hoes Lane  Room RRC 1C-214           E-mail: [email-masked]
Piscataway, NJ 08854                     Phone: (732) 699-5570
--
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: Patrick Rogan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 00:32:14 -0500

I think at this point it's pretty much redundant.  I only use pixmap
path in my .fvwm2rc, and it's loaded with icons.

~p@

---

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:27:50 -0500 (EST)

On Sat, 27 Feb 1999, Dan Espen wrote:

> list somewhere.

Hmm.  Yup, you're right:

  - Go to just one IconPath instead of PixmapPath too?

OK, I've implemented this and it compiles.  After testing a bit, I'll
commit.

One comment on headers:

Right now, there are some foo.h headers with declarations for stuff in
foo.c, but there are also conglomerations like misc.h and fvwmlib.h that
declare functions from several different .c files. I will say that I
vastly prefer the foo.c/foo.h paradigm, so I've moved some stuff from
fvwmlib.h to a new Picture.h.  Yell now if this is the wrong way to go! 

> You probably want to make  both commands point to the

I did.  PixmapPath will give a warning, then invoke IconPath.
 
> path, regardless of user settings of pixmappath.

About installing icons: there was also some interest in splitting the
icons into a WM-independent package.  I haven't heard any more on that
recently, but since

	* most of the icons have nothing to do with fvwm
and
	* few icons change between code releases

it doesn't make sense to have them ALL distributed with fvwm.  Sure, some
of the fvwm-specific ones should be included.  And it would be nice to
have a MINIMAL set of icons, for some generic stuff like xterms.  But
beyond that, I'd say the installer should just go and get a good icon
package independent of fvwm.

Anyway, I haven't done anything either way about this.

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:06:32 -0500

----------
> On Sat, 27 Feb 1999, Dan Espen wrote:
...
> I did.  PixmapPath will give a warning, then invoke IconPath.

Hmm.  The "icons" directory holds "xpms" (Pixmaps).
Fvwm2 uses them for icons, and pixmap backgrounds.

I think I lean toward making "IconPath" the obsolete command,
but I can see reasons for using either one...

---

From: Patrick Rogan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 20:14:08 -0500

>> I did.  PixmapPath will give a warning, then invoke IconPath.

So, if you get rid of PixmapPath, is it obvious where i'm supposed to
put pixmaps for titlebar gradients & menus?

~p@

---

From: "Randall S. Winchester" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:27:43 -0500 (EST)

The one "pixmap" directory that *should* always be included in any fvwm
compile is is /<path-to-x-tree>/include/X11/pixmaps. Besides that, *maybe*
an fvwm specific one like /<path-to-fvwm-tree>/icons.

Anything local should be added to those. If it had the same soft of variable
substitution that was suggested for ModulePath it would be very helpful when
using the same .fvwm2rc file across platforms with different versions of X
installations.

Randall

On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Steve Robbins wrote:

: On Sat, 27 Feb 1999, Dan Espen wrote:
: > Steve Robbins <[email-masked]> writes:
: > > Is there any real reason to have separate pixmap & icon paths?  They are
: > > by default set to the same value, but the code seems of several minds on
: > > their use. 
: > > To my mind, having two paths is confusing and annoying.  I think
: > > LoadPicture() takes the right approach.  Should we move (back?) to a
: > > single icon path, or is there a compelling reason for separating them that
: > > I am missing?
: > 
: > I don't think you  are missing anything.  I think  this is in the TODO
: > list somewhere.
: 
: Hmm.  Yup, you're right:
: 
:   - Go to just one IconPath instead of PixmapPath too?
: 
: OK, I've implemented this and it compiles.  After testing a bit, I'll
: commit.
: > You probably want to make  both commands point to the
: > same function, and document one of them as obsolete.
: 
: I did.  PixmapPath will give a warning, then invoke IconPath.
:  
: > I believe the other objective we had in this regard was to install the
: > icons somewhere,  and have that directory at  the bottom of the pixmap
: > path, regardless of user settings of pixmappath.
: 
: About installing icons: there was also some interest in splitting the
: icons into a WM-independent package.  I haven't heard any more on that
: recently, but since
: 
: 	* most of the icons have nothing to do with fvwm
: and
: 	* few icons change between code releases
: 
: it doesn't make sense to have them ALL distributed with fvwm.  Sure, some
: of the fvwm-specific ones should be included.  And it would be nice to
: have a MINIMAL set of icons, for some generic stuff like xterms.  But
: beyond that, I'd say the installer should just go and get a good icon
: package independent of fvwm.
: 
: Anyway, I haven't done anything either way about this.