Battery Monitor on Plasma 2

[Marco Martin]

On Sunday 29 December 2013, Sebastian Kügler wrote:
> > formfactor does exist, but there aren't differences between being in
> > apanel or  in a systray...
> > hmm, so when in a systray would make sense a "constrained" formfactor or
> > something like that, ie not able to expand neither horizontally nor
> > vertically
> 
> So add a formfactor "ConstrainedSquare" ... wait, we had that in the past.
> I've given this some though as well, and I think the cleanest solution is
> to reintroduce it.

yeah, it was a slightly different thing tough, it was an "aspectRatio" 
property, so was the plasmoid that was asking the containment to be sized like 
that.
while if it goes in the formfactor is the other way around, is the containment 
that says to the plasmoid to not try to expand.
(not sure about the constrainedsquare name btw, since was used for another 
type, unless is aspectratio again, but i would rather not since doesn't play 
well with layouts)

> That said, I think flags might be more elegant here, so the constraints
> could be Vertical | Horizontal, but I'm not sure how happy that'd make us
> in two aspects:
> 
> - needs porting in plasmoid, and the case can be hard to test -> we
> introduce subtle bugs
> - it's easy to confuse the setter with a normal setter, overriding
> properties (maybe not so much an issue, since it's a read-only property)
> 
> With that in mind, I'd opt for ConstrainedSquare as new formfactor.

yeah, would change the value of the enum, i fear that there could still remain 
one or two cases around where (the horror) was using directly the numbers.

it would have probably be the best way tough if plasma was designed today 
(NoConstraint=0 for planar, vertical or horizontal for panels, the or for the 
systray)
I don't hink it's worth to do the huge porting work tough

-- 
Marco Martin