Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!wright!maize!adatta
From: adatta@maize.wright.edu (Amitava Datta)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Window Managers and Client Menus
Message-ID: <685@thor.wright.EDU>
Date: 27 Sep 89 15:33:57 GMT
References: <663@thor.wright.EDU> <654@thor.wright.EDU> <1839@bacchus.dec.com> <296@auto-trol.UUCP>
Sender: news@wright.EDU
Lines: 28

In article <296@auto-trol.UUCP>, marbru@auto-trol.UUCP (Martin Brunecky) writes:
> 	............. And I, as a user-interface programmer,
>         will have the option to pick the toolkit which suits to my needs
> 	(such as ease of use, my favorite "look", performance, portability...)
> 	without having to worry about the "feel".
> 	

The user interface SHOULD NOT be designed to suit the needs of the
"user-interface programmer" but that of the USER. Your "favorite look"
and "ease of use" is really of no concern to the user of your program.
That's the reason why we leave things like window decoration to the WM
and let the user choose which decoration to have on the windows (by
selecting one of the many WMs) instead of providing a window decoration 
in the client program that we (as programmers) like around our windows. 

> 
>     3.  Yeeeeh. As long as we talk few simplistic applications, everything
> 	is simple. When you go into applications with HUNDREDS of menu
> 	options (I happen to work on such), simlicity suddenly turns into
> 	a nightmare. You can not define everything statically. You must
> 	add dynamicsi - such as deffered sub-tree definitions. 

Our scheme allows dynamic menu definitions. 

If you have a particular way of handling menus that our scheme does not
support please email me the details. We'll look into it.

Amitava Datta (adatta@cs.wright.edu)