AW: AW: Infrastructural complexity.

[klaus.berndl]

>The debate is really about how best to define what
>a "window group" is.

>One school of thought says that a "window group" is
>something entirely new - a new concept.  The other
>school of thought says that "window groups" already
>exist - they're called "frames".

>Something like ECB's displays, if we understand
>window groups as frames, would be implemented by
>having multiple frames that tile a single window
>system window (or that tile a text terminal display).
>Right now a text terminal or a window system window
>is always one frame but, with "framelets", that would
>change.

well, these "framelets" sound good, very good - this is exactly
what i meant with the window-group-concept described in my
last posting.

I don't care about the naming of that concepts, which tiles
a single window system window (or that tile a text terminal
display), IMHO "framelet" is as good as "window-group" would be.
But i'm convinced that we need a concept between the "a window system
window is exactly one frame" and an emacs-window... otherwise
writing something like ECB without heavily advicing Emacs is quite
impossible

i will try to abstract a requirement specification what is
exactly needed by ECB to throw away all of it's "kernel"-advices
(apart from that - often very small - advices which are needed
to achieve compatibility to other packages which have own "window-
managements"...)

Klaus


-t