- Remove advertise_view and advertise_done events. Using the information
provided by these for any purpose would make the layout far less
predictable. Futhermore, in the months this has been available for use,
to my knowledge nobody has actually used it for anything useful.
- Replace the set/mod layout value events with a single user_command
event. This simplifies the protocol and is more flexible for clients.
- Add a layout_name argument to the commit request. This name is an
arbitrary, user-facing string that might, for example, be displayed by a
status bar. This was present in early drafts of the protocol, but was
removed in favor of river-options. Since river-options itself has since
been removed and this feature is nice to have, re-add it.
- Rename main factor to main ratio in rivertile. The "factor" name was
just legacy from dwm, "ratio" is much more accurate.
This code is complex and increases maintenance burden but doesn't
add any functionality, only eye-candy.
Futhermore, neither I nor any of the core contributors use it.
There may be a place in river for such eye-candy down the line, in which
case this code could be revived. Currently river is early enough in its
development that our focus should be on core functionality instead.
A true "default" config doesn't make sense for river. Everyone who uses
river seriously will customize their init script. Futhermore, the
current behavior of embedding the install path of the default system
config in the river binary is complex and prone to breaking.
On output change, if the cursor is not already on the newly focused
output, it will now be warped to its center. The check is necessary,
since focusing outputs with the pointer will be implemented in
the future.
Add support for command line arguments to set default values for the
various options of rivertile, bringing us back to rough feature parity
with before the commit removing the river-options protocol.
This protocol involves far too much accidental complexity. The original
motivating use-case was to provide a convenient way to send arbitrary
data to layout clients at runtime in order to avoid layout clients
needing to implement their own IPC and do this over a side-channel.
Instead of implementing a quite complex but still rigid options protocol
and storing this state in the compositor, instead we will simply add
events to the layout protocol to support this use case.
Consider the status quo event sequence:
1. send get_option_handle request (riverctl)
2. roundtrip waiting for first event (riverctl)
3. send set_foo_value request (riverctl)
4. receive set_foo_value request (river)
5. send foo_value event to all current handles (river)
6. receive foo_value event (rivertile)
7. send parameters_changed request (rivertile)
8. receive parameters_changed request (river)
9. send layout_demand (river)
And compare with the event sequence after the proposed change:
1. send set_foo_value request (riverctl)
2. receive set_foo_value request (river)
3. send set_foo_value event (river)
4. send layout_demand (river)
This requires *much* less back and forth between the server and clients
and is clearly much simpler.
Options are now all global but may be overridden per-output. If an
output local value is requested but none has been set, the global value
is provided instead. This makes for much better ergonomics when
configuring layout related options in particular.
Run the init command in a new process group and send SIGTERM to the
entire group on exit. Without doing this, only the sh invocation used
for the `sh -c` would receive SIGTERM.
This is particularly useful when starting a per-session server manager
as the init command.
Replace the current layout mechanism based on passing args to a child
process and parsing it's stdout with a new wayland protocol. This much
more robust and allows for more featureful layout generators.
Co-authored-by: Isaac Freund <ifreund@ifreund.xyz>
Outputs now have a default option, "output_title". If this changes, the
outputs title is set to the option value. This title is currently only
relevant when run nested in a wayland/X11 session.
Co-authored-by: Isaac Freund <ifreund@ifreund.xyz>
main is a better term to use here for several reasons:
1. It is more accurate: "master" implies that the designated views have
some kind of control over the other views, which is not the case. "main"
better expresses that the difference between the "main" view and others
is one of importance/focus.
2. It is a shorter word. 2 whole characters saved!
3. It reduces the chance of future development time being lost to
good-intentioned people complaining about usage of the word master as
has recently happened with regards to the default git branch name.
