On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Christophe Olinger
wrote:
> Same conclusion from my side. First the basic fucntionality and UI polish,
> then feature additions.
>
> I also agree with Alessandro that extragear sounds like a good home, but as
> was side before: in due time.
>
> I finished the slide
> that's basically how xsmp already works, btw: what I'd be adding is a way to
> tell a process "please save/close only these windows, not everything".
>
> processes that haven't been upgraded to understand that would just ignore it
> and their windows would be closed when *none* of them are ne
> what about an old application doesn't support this tough? abort the activity
> close? trying and hoping?
IMO, aborting close for those would be ugly. If the app doesn't reply,
"true" should be considered as the answer.
It will break the atomicity, but it will be more what-the-user-expects.
Che
> ..hrm. I just realized, the one-process-many-windows processes closing their
> windows after the rest of the session is done is not quite optimal, because
> they don't get the cancel option. a slight ugliness. maybe it's worth
Yes, it is not really atomic. If there is an option to change xsm
