more task-refactor issues

[Marco Martin]

On Sunday 05 October 2008, Christian Mollekopf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i've done some work on the tasks-refactor widget
> and implemented multiple row support.
>
> To bring it to a usable state i would like to discuss some things again:
>
> Multiple Row Support
>
> The multipleRow support currently works like this that you can set a
> maximum number of rows. A row is considere to be full on a ceratain number
> of tasks (currently hardcoded 6). If a row is full a next row is added
> until the maximum number of rows is exeeded. If both, rows and columns are
> exeeded more collumns are added as needed.
>
> -Idea to calculate value on which row is full? (or also configurable?)

when the width becomes less than a ratio (say 0.6 or something) of the 
preferred size?
the maximum number of rows could be something like height of the 
taskbar/KiconLoadr::SizeSmall

> Only Group when full (library)
>
> -Should a taskbar be considered as full (for the group only when full
> option) if the first row is full, or if both, rows and columns are full?
hmm, not sure of that, maybe only whel all rows are full?

> Group Popup Menu
>
> The popupMenu seems quite convenient to me. Unfortuantely i wasn't able to
> implement a BasicMenu on rightclick on a popupmenu entry but this should be
> ready with the "fancy way" as marco pointed out.
>
> Expanded Group
>
> Since the current behaviour isn't working anymore with more than 1 row
> we have to change it (exept we want to have different behaviour if 1 rows
> or more are chose..) Ideas:
> -popup which overlays existing tasks
> -"zooming in" -> replace the rootGroup layout by the group layout
sigh, seems really an implementation detail that gets evident on the 
interface, not good :( the current behaviour would be the most intuitive, but 
would require to use only one grid layout, code wide a bit of a nightmare...
maybe zooming in and when zoomed display a fake task item that says zoom 
out?

Cheers,
Marco Martin 
>
> Show only minimized(iconified) tasks:
>
> -should we add this functionality?