🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <IZCBZWy00UkaQFAPlV@andrew.cmu.edu> bader+@andrew.cmu.edu (Miles Bader) writes:
>barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) writes:
>> In article <4703@amiga.UUCP> jimm@batgirl.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) writes:
>> > [This is why you need only 1 depth gadget, not 2.]
>> ...
>>         Picture three stacked windows, labelled 1, 2, and 3.  1 is on top of
>> 2, and 2 is on top of 3.  Window 1 covers exactly the left half of the
>> screen.  Window 2 covers the entire screen.  Window 3 covers exactly the
>> right half of the screen.
>>         The object is to display window 3, which is totally obscured by
>> window 2.
>> 
>>         With the one-gadget system, what must you do?  Well, you can't click
>> on window 3 at all, so you click window 2's gadget.  Since window 2 is not
>> in front (window 1 is), it comes to the front.  Now click window 2 again
>> to send it to the back, thereby displaying window 3.
>> 
>>         With the two-gadget system, you just click window 2's "back" gadget,
>> displaying window 3.
>
>You do need one more click-- but clicking twice instead of once is SO EASY,
>that it makes little difference.  In fact, I would bet that it's easier to do
>this than decide which of the two existing front<->back gadgets to click on.
>I know I'm always forgetting which one is which...

Ah, but the real problem is that if window 1 was SIMPLE_REFRESH, the
application would need to re-render the window, which could take a while.
Also, the extra layer activity will take much more time with MANY windows
open on the screen.  (I have had many times when I had 15 to 20 windows of
various types open on the workbench screen...)

This is not to say that the single gadget is bad or good.  It is different
and will cause a few problems.  What I really want is that the screen
front/back gadgets look different from the window front/back gadgets.
(They are, after all, a different beast...)

				-- Mike