shared menus

[Matthew Woehlke]

Maciej Pilichowski wrote:
> On Thursday 21 May 2009 21:37:13 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> Maciej Pilichowski wrote:
>>> On Thursday 21 May 2009 18:23:52 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>>> I turned off shared menu for TAI container; shared menu (for
>>>> TAI) has two effects:
>>>> - menu might be above tab strip instead of below
>>> It was intended :-)
>> ...but shared menu is not needed for this.
> 
> Well, but there is no difference. After all shared menu means -- show 
> only one menu at a time.

Yes. As in, "show ALL descendent menus here", which I don't necessarily 
want. (Unless that restriction is bad enough to have some other solution 
to "magic menus".)

> I see it in reverse -- pass shared menu as far as containers allow for 
> that.

...which means you need more than two settings, and you get "turf wars" 
if a container wants to pass up menus but parent doesn't want them. And 
you have "magic menus" problem (or lots of empty places where menu would 
otherwise be).

It's more flexible, yes, but I'm not coming up with a UI that isn't too 
much more complex to convince me it is worth it.

> In your case if I set desktop has shared menu it will suck 
> everything, even deep buried menu. I will actually lost control 
> because in such case it does not matter what I set for other 
> containers. Desktop is root and it gets everything.

True. But think of it this way, if you have shared menu at desktop for 
some windows, where do you *want* the menu to be for other windows? If 
you do not suck everything, you either have disappearing menus, or lots 
of empty menus. With "suck everything", you always get the active leaf's 
menu (unless it doesn't have one).

>> (Actually you can't have help - at least, I don't think so, right
>> now anyway - if app doesn't provide it,
> 
> We can make it up -- "about KDE", "KDE handbook", "report a bug".

Ah, the /really/ generic stuff. But what if it is not a KDE app? (Well, 
we can always put 'about KWin' ;-). And of course, we could have a 
global menu icon, like OS-X.)

>> I wonder if this will
>> lead to "optional" menus, as in, "show this stuff if a container
>> wants a menu, but don't show a menu in this window".)
> 
> I hope not :-D

Why not? I don't see a problem. As an easy example, something that has 
'hide menu bar'. It would be like this, but you only hide the menu bar 
if you aren't showing it anyway.

-- 
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
-- 
This is not a sig. I am too lazy to steal one, perhaps you could loan me 
yours? -- Unknown