Why:
* Two different (but related) concepts had the same name
* Users were confused for years on IRC
* The wibar name was already in use in some doc to avoid confusion
Commit 8a6787bd54 added screen.fake_add(). Commit 08845c7a4b made us cache a
screen's workarea in the struct screen_t. This new member needs to be
initialized to the screen's geometry when a new screen is added. Since both
these commits were developed concurrently, the workarea was not initialized in
screen.fake_add().
Fix this by calling in fake_add() the helper function added in 08845c7a4b.
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
Instead of computing the workarea whenever some Lua code asks for it, it is now
remembered explicitly as a property on a screen. This allows us to only emit
property::workarea if the workarea actually changed.
Fixes: https://github.com/awesomeWM/awesome/issues/756
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
When a screen is removed, we have to update screen.primary (if it was the
removed screen) and assign a different screen to all clients which were on the
removed screen.
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
A client cannot be used any more after it was unmanaged. Similarly, Lua
shouldn't be allowed to e.g. assign a client to a screen that was removed. This
commit adds such a checker which "breaks" all screens which are not in the
global screen list.
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
This commit adds a "removed" signal to screens. Together with the "added" signal
that we have since a while, this allows the C code to update the list of
available screens dynamically without needing to restart.
So far, this code received only minimal testing. So far, I don't have a nice
idea on how to easily test this...
Closes: https://github.com/awesomeWM/awesome/issues/672
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
We once had the problem that with the nvidia blob, the X11 server told us that
"yes, I do support RandR; there is just a single big screen" even though there
were multiple screens and they could be queried for via Xinerama. To work around
this, we started to ignore RandR if it only provided information about a single
screen.
Our long-term goal is to stop restarting on RandR screen changes. Thus, even if
only a single screen is defined during startup, we should still use RandR later
when another screen is added. This means that we cannot just ignore RandR if it
only mentions a single screen.
This commit copies what GTK+ does: If there is an output named "default", then
some compatibility layer is assumed and we ignore RandR.
I have no way to test if this really does the right thing.
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
Instead of adding all screens directly to globalconf.screens, the individual
"scanner functions" now get a screen_array_t as their argument and add the
screens there. Also, they no longer emit the "added" signal themselves (through
screen_add()), but the caller does now does this instead once all screens are
found.
This commit drops the "deduplication" of screens. This likely means that clone
mode causes duplicate screens. This will have to be re-added later.
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
Commit c543f59696 introduced the following warnings:
objects/screen.c:307:1: warning: return type defaults to ‘int’ [-Wimplicit-int]
objects/screen.c:307:1: warning: no previous prototype for ‘screen_scan_randr_monitors’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
XRandR 1.5 adds support for the new monitor objects.
'Monitor' is a rectangular subset of the screen which represents a
coherent collection of pixels presented to the user. Each Monitor is be
associated with a list of outputs (which may be empty).
The patch below matches 1:1 screens in AwesomeWM with XRandR's Monitors.
This way I get one screen across my 4K monitor, which is represented by
two CRTCs.
Background info: http://keithp.com/blogs/MST-monitors/
Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name>
This commit makes all C code that previously returned a screen index now return
a screen object, continuing the deprecation of screen indicies. Note that this
is an API break and will likely cause all kinds of problems for users.
The change also breaks some tests which are suitably fixed in this commit.
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
Right now this just always returns the first screens, but this can easily be
implemented properly later.
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
Even when a screen is just an integer, the code becomes a bit more
self-documenting. Even better, if we start to handle screen objects to Lua
instead of screen indicies, there will only be one place that needs to be
changed.
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
Instead of comparing only the top-left corner of the screen to the provided
coordinate, this now compares the screen in a more intuitive way, e.g.
coordinates inside of the screen have a distance of zero.
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
This makes it possible to add something similar to a __index / __newindex
metamethod to all our C objects. Based on this, Lua can then easily implement
arbitrary properties on our capi objects.
While debugging #331, I have noticed that the call to `client_resize`
might have changed the screen (and emitted the signal) already, via
a call to `screen_client_moveto` with `doresize=False`.
Closes https://github.com/awesomeWM/awesome/pull/332.
Uli Schlachter
Daniel Hahler
Emmanuel Lepage Vallee
Kirill A. Shutemov
Daniel Hahler