Subject: Re: pixmap & icon paths?

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 22:07:39 -0500 (EST)

On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Patrick Rogan wrote:

> >> 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?

Hm.  I never thought about this.  I wasn't aware that the PixmapPath was
being searched for button & menu backgrounds.

I retained "IconPath" as the sole path, because I thought the pictures
there were being used only for icons.

I suppose we could retain "PixmapPath" instead.  That has the advantage of
being usage-neutral, but the disadvantage that it sounds like it is ONLY
for pixmaps. 

Alternatively, we could call it "PicturePath", since they are known as
pictures internally.  This is both usage- and format-neutral, but seems
like a bit of a gratuitous change. 

We've had one opinion expressed that PixmapPath should be the command
retained.  I sort of lean to PicturePath from an aesthetic point of view,
but I'm willing to be persuaded that PixmapPath is better from a
backwards-compatibility stance.  Other opinions? 

--
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: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 09:54:08 -0500

> but the disadvantage that it sounds like it is ONLY
> for pixmaps. 

Can fvwm read graphics formats other than pixmaps? (bitmaps are pixmaps,
technically)

~p@

---

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 17:25:54 +0200 (IST)

> Alternatively, we could call it "PicturePath", since they are known as

Better yet "ImagePath". In hope fvwm will soon manage other image formats
than pixmaps and bitmaps.

-- 
Migo.

---

From: Patrick Rogan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 11:09:56 -0500

We COULD link in Imlib... 

~p@

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 "To understand guys, it is essential to remember that, deep down
 inside, they are biological creatures, like jellyfish or trees, 
 only less likely to clean the bathroom."            --Dave Barry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:53:13 -0500 (EST)

> Can fvwm read graphics formats other than pixmaps? (bitmaps are pixmaps,

Not yet, but consider Mikhael Goikhman's response.

I like the suggestion of calling it ImagePath. 

--
Steve Robbins                              <[email-masked]>

This is not a locker room, and that's a surfboard, not a yacht.

---

From: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 02 Mar 1999 12:12:53 -0600

>>>>> "PR" == Patrick Rogan <[email-masked]> writes:

PR> We COULD link in Imlib...

[Runs screaming]

...but in retrospect, it would a nice option if only because the library
will already be loaded on a significant number of target machines.
Unfortunately, initing imlib costs 500K per instance (not per machine) for
the cache if you want it since it doesn't support any kind of unified
cache.

 - J<

---

From: "Randall S. Winchester" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 11:04:10 -0500 (EST)

: On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Patrick Rogan wrote:
:
: I retained "IconPath" as the sole path, because I thought the pictures
: there were being used only for icons.
: 
: I suppose we could retain "PixmapPath" instead.  That has the advantage of
: being usage-neutral, but the disadvantage that it sounds like it is ONLY
: for pixmaps. 
: 
: Alternatively, we could call it "PicturePath", since they are known as
: pictures internally.  This is both usage- and format-neutral, but seems
: like a bit of a gratuitous change. 
: 
: We've had one opinion expressed that PixmapPath should be the command
: retained.  I sort of lean to PicturePath from an aesthetic point of view,
: but I'm willing to be persuaded that PixmapPath is better from a
: backwards-compatibility stance.  Other opinions? 

I feel that at least one of the original names remain.

I am concerned about compatibility across a thousand machines of various OS
flavors, and version, all running fvwm as the default wm. I do not see this
nameing as a valid reason to break compatibility.

My preference would be which ever one that is currently the most
incompassing. If that is "PixmapPath" then it should be used despite its
"name". For my setup it does not appear to make a difference if I use only
"IconPath" or only "PixmapPath" (I use xpm's in the titlebar, menus, etc).

Another option would to have a "PicturePath" that would take some order of;

if (${IconPath} != NULL) then
${PicturePath} == ${IconPath}:${PicturePath}
if (${PixmapPath} != NULL) then 
${PicturePath} == ${PixmapPath}:${PicturePath}

Then we could be publishe that IconPath and PixmapPath were being
depreciated in favor of PicturePath.

Then again, what about ImagePath?

Randall

---

From: Patrick Rogan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 13:14:14 -0500

> PR> We COULD link in Imlib...

He He He  :)  It's not THAT bad.  The no-global-cache issue IS a turn
off, though...

> will already be loaded on a significant number of target machines.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.  -- But more precisely, that's a
significant number of _LINUX_ machines.  The rest of the world won't
have Imlib by default.

Since we're going the Gnome route, maybe if they compile in "Full Gnome
Compatibility" then they get to use Imlib.  If they don't, then they get
to use pixmaps.

~p@

-- 

Patrick Rogan
-----------------------------------
Systems Engineer

Lycos, Inc.
1 Oxford Centre
301 Grant Street, Suite 525
Pittsburgh, PA   15219-1408
--
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: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 03 Mar 1999 12:38:21 -0600

>>>>> "PR" == Patrick Rogan <[email-masked]> writes:

PR> Yeah, that's what I was thinking.  -- But more precisely, that's a
PR> significant number of _LINUX_ machines.  The rest of the world won't
PR> have Imlib by default.

You discount the fact that Gnome is portable; I will certainly have it
running on my Suns and Digital machines.

Not all Linux machines will have Gnome; not all machines running Gnome
will be Linux machines.  Of course, a large number of machines of all Unix
flavors ill have neither Gnome nor Imlib, so the point is probably moot.

 - J<

---

From: Brad Giaccio <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 14:06:48 -0500

> running on my Suns and Digital machines.
I see you haven't actually tried to be fully gnome under solaris, I tried and gave up about 6 libraries in I got tired of compiling.

Brad

---

From: Tomas Ogren <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:39:42 +0100

On 03 March, 1999 - Brad Giaccio sent me these 0,8K bytes:

> I see you haven't actually tried to be fully gnome under solaris, I
> tried and gave up about 6 libraries in I got tired of compiling.

I have a pretty much full compile on Solaris 2.6, and have been keeping
it like that for quite a while now.. Very few problems (related to
solaris) ...

/Tomas
-- 
Tomas Ögren, [email-masked], http://www.ing.umu.se/~stric/
|- Student of Computer Science at the University of Umeå
`- Sysadmin at {ing,acc}.umu.se
--
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: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:52:13 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Randall S. Winchester wrote:

> : there were being used only for icons. [ ... ]

> Then again, what about ImagePath?

I prefer ImagePath to any of: PicturePath, IconPath, or PixmapPath.

What I envisaged was this:

ImagePath is implemented, and documented as the proper way to set the
path.  Both PixmapPath and IconPath remain; they will print out a warning,
and then call ImagePath.  At some point, PixmapPath and IconPath would
disappear, but they would remain through at least one full release.

How would this affect a user?  There are several possibilities, depending
on what is in their fvwmrc:

1. neither PixmapPath nor IconPath appear
- no change

2. exactly one of PixmapPath or IconPath appears
- warning emitted; images work as usual

3. both appear, set to different paths
- two warnings emitted; the last path set wins

4. both appear, set to the same value
- two warnings emitted; images work as usual

The breakage happens only in case #3 when the last path set is the
smaller. I suppose this could be coded around, but is this the most likely
case?

In any event, there will be a clear warning about what happened and how to
fix it, along the lines of: "IconPath is deprecated since 2.3.0; use
ImagePath in its place."

Good enough?

Remember: they always let you down when you need 'em.

---

From: Bob Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 22:55:28 -0500

> I prefer ImagePath to any of: PicturePath, IconPath, or PixmapPath.

	I like this one.

- Bob

---

From: "Robert H. Ford II" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 12:25:20 -0600

I have one, possible silly, question.

Does fvwm2 export an "ImagePath" the way it does for "ModulePath"?

When you run configure now you can specify the path from the command line
(--with-iconpath).  If fvwm2 could then export this path, there would be no need
to have an "ImagePath" defined in the rc file, except if a user had private
images. Then all they would need to do is ImagePath=$ImagePath:/home/me/images.

-- 
    _/_/_/     _/  _/   _/_/_/_/   _/_/_/_/_/_/ Robert H. Ford II
   _/   _/    _/  _/   _/           _/    _/    Lucent Technologies
  _/_/_/     _/_/_/   _/_/_/       _/    _/     Bell Labs Innovations
 _/   _/    _/  _/   _/           _/    _/      Naperville IL, 60566-7045
_/    _/   _/  _/   _/         _/_/_/_/_/_/     mailto:[email-masked]
--
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: [email-masked] (Paul D. Smith)
Date: 04 Mar 1999 14:33:05 -0500

%% "Robert H. Ford II" <[email-masked]> writes:

  rhf> Does fvwm2 export an "ImagePath" the way it does for "ModulePath"?

It doesn't now, although it could be made to easily enough.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <[email-masked]>         Network Management Development
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
--
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]