On March 9, 2010 19:50:52 Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > On March 9, 2010, Chani wrote: > > well yeah, but then when the screen is disconnected you can't get at the > > containment(s) that were on it until you reconnect a screen. > > or do you think that's just not important? > > i can imagine use cases where it's important, but it's something we can > address later easily enough. > > or maybe we could get it nearly "for free" when we get around to stashing > containments that are associated with a screen that doesn't currently > exist; we could show these other containments as part of the activity that > can be switched between, perhaps via a popup or other "slide out" in the > activity switcher. > > but yes, there is a lot of groundwork that needs to be done first before we > get to this chasm-in-need-of-a-bridge and i don't see anything that would > create a blocker to building that bridge when we need to.
ok :) it was mostly the fact that the api has the assumption that there is One And Only One "current" activity; wanted to be sure that wouldn't cause us headaches someday. -- This message brought to you by eevil bananas and the number 3. www.chani3.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
