[xmonad] darcs patch: A ResizableTile-like layout that can be resized using ...

[Spencer Janssen]

On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 01:39:06AM +0200, Jan Vornberger wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 01:10:46PM -0400, Adam Vogt wrote:
> > * On Wednesday, September 30 2009, Spencer Janssen wrote:
> > 
> > >On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 02:15:46PM +0200, Jan Vornberger wrote:
> > >> Wed Sep 30 14:11:05 CEST 2009  Jan Vornberger <jan.vornberger at informatik.uni-oldenburg.de>
> > >>   * A ResizableTile-like layout that can be resized using the mouse.
> > >>   All separations between windows can be dragged to modify the layout.
> > >>   Keyboard commands can also be used to achieve the same effect.
> > >
> > >How else does this differ from ResizableTile?  Can we merge the two?  Less code
> > >is always better.
> > 
> > I think the ResizableTile module should just be replaced by this one,
> > since it provides a superset of the ResizableTile functionality.
> > 
> > Listening for mouse clicks might have some kind of performance issues,
> > but we could make those things optional?
> 
> It probably has some kind of performance impact, as input windows have
> to be created, I agree.

The performance impact should be marginal.  I think we can disregard this as a
reason not to replace ResizableTile.

> There is another subtle difference in the way 'slave' windows are
> handled: When you have one master window and three slave windows open in
> ResizableTile, the slave windows will get about 1/3 of the height each.
> The way those sizes are calculated is somewhat tricky though, because
> you can resize all those slave windows individually. Modifying one slave
> window will usually also affect all the others.
> 
> I found that to be to hard to work with when I wanted to implement the
> option to change the boundaries with the mouse. So in MouseResizableTile
> the sizes are calculated in such a way, that modifying one boundary will
> only affect the two adjacent windows. That way it's easier to calculate
> how far you can drag the boundary (as the min and max value doesn't
> change while you drag - as it would if I would use the calculation
> scheme of ResizableTile).
> With three slave windows open, you will get 1/2, 1/4 and 1/4 by default.
> You can of course still resize them to 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, it's just that the
> default is different and modifying boundaries will behave slightly
> different. People who are used to ResizableTile would probably notice
> that quickly.

I don't find these changes to be objectionable, but I don't use ResizableTile.
Can we have some current ResizableTile users try this module out?  If we don't
get any complaints before the next release, let's just replace the old module
with this new one.


Cheers,
Spencer Janssen