Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Introduce grouped_titlebar command #8248

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

kennylevinsen
Copy link
Member

Stacking and tabbed layouts effectively override the titlebar control of the border command, always showing the titlebar to allow navigation.

Allow users to also hide the titlebar of stacking/tabbed layouts, through a new command that specify whether grouped titlebar configurations should always be visible (the default) or if they should follow the active container's border configuration.

A take on #7409 based on one of the suggestions in #8026.

Plenty of room for bikeshedding the name and shape of the command, but the wiring should be pretty much the same regardless. It's somewhat quirky that the titlebar behavior of a tabbed/stacking container is controlled by the child, but the same goes for the border behavior right now.

Copy link
Contributor

@WhyNotHugo WhyNotHugo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like the reasoning behind this. It's a nice and simple approach. The code makes sense to me too.

Haven't had a chance to actually test it yet.

sway/sway.5.scd Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@emersion
Copy link
Member

I wonder if "grouped" is the right terminology here? The i3 user guide only uses the terms "tabbed layout", "stacking layout" and "split layout".

@kennylevinsen
Copy link
Member Author

I wonder if "grouped" is the right terminology here? The i3 user guide only uses the terms "tabbed layout", "stacking layout" and "split layout".

Definitely not! I just tried to come up with a term that could cover both stacking and tabbed at the same time without a horribly verbose stacking_and_tabbed_titlebar scenario. It feels awkward - suggestions welcome.

We could also split the setting up into stacking and tabbed versions to save us the pain of coming up with a name.

@kennylevinsen
Copy link
Member Author

Split it into stacking/tabbed commands.

@@ -111,6 +111,16 @@ They are expected to be used with *bindsym* or at runtime through *swaymsg*(1).
*border* toggle
Cycles through the available border styles.

*stacking_titlebar* always_visible|follows_border
Set whether the titlebar for contains with stacking layouts should always
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
Set whether the titlebar for contains with stacking layouts should always
Set whether the titlebar for containers with stacking layouts should always

other layouts.

*tabbed_titlebar* always_visible|follows_border
Set whether the titlebar for contains with tabbed layouts should always
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
Set whether the titlebar for contains with tabbed layouts should always
Set whether the titlebar for containers with tabbed layouts should always

@emersion
Copy link
Member

Seems like this is missing some files?

Stacking and tabbed layouts effectively override the titlebar control of
the border command, always showing the titlebar to allow navigation.

Allow users to also hide the titlebar of stacking/tabbed layouts,
through new commands that specify whether titlebars for these layouts
should always be visible (the default) or if they should follow the
active container's border configuration.
@kennylevinsen
Copy link
Member Author

Seems like this is missing some files?

Heh, forgot to re-add after I renamed the command.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants