This also cleans up the code by using @Type(), eliminating the need
for the argFlag() and boolFlag() functions.
Allowing [:0]const u8 arguments makes this parser useful for
river-control commands as well.
It is not guaranteed that the next layout_demand event after a user_command
event has the same active tags (for example when there are no views visible).
As an example, a user could trigger a user_command while no views are visible,
then switch to a different tag set which has active views. The active tags of
the previous layout_demand may also be different.
Therefore it is impossible to correctly implement a layout generator which has
user commands apply only to the currently active tag set, which is solved by
this patch.
This doesn't really matter that much as unrecognized options will still
trigger a help message to be printed, but -h is much more standard so
lets make the predictable choice here while sticking to only single '-'
flags.
This is currently unused and I don't like the approach anymore
regardless. If/when we need positional arguments (probably when
implementing the upcoming river-control protocol in rivertile)
they should be handled separately from flags.
This commit also improves the CLI error reporting to always print the
usage string if invalid arguments were passed.
- 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.
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.
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>
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.
