A little shadow patch ...

[Auke Kok]

Olivier Fourdan wrote:

>On Fri, 2004-11-12 at 00:59 +0100, Nikolas Arend wrote:
>  
>
>>>Oh, yeah you are wrong. 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>So xfce is not meant for a broader audience? Pity, 'cause I think you 
>>have a good chance to show everybody that an intelligent desktop implementation can 
>>be both rich of features that really matter and lightweight and stable as well. 
>>Unlike some well known OS for the i386 architecture.
>>    
>>
>
>Please read my statement again, I did not say I was against a broader
>audience, I said it's definitely not the initial goal, and it's still
>not the goal ("being a choice for a broader audience" would be a
>meaningless goal IMO)
>

exactly!

This is why I suggested that this type of 'tweak' goes into a separate 
settings manager plugin. If that is technically possible (for another 
3rd-party to modify xfwm4 behaviour somehow) it would provide other 
people the ability to add fluff and wrap that in a separate package.

It would benefit the modularity and cleanness of xfce IMO, and it would 
allow 3rd parties to provide functionality which some of us might 
appreciate, without touching (too much) on the core xfce libs/xfwm4.

Olivier, do you think this would be a viable alternative?

sofar