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

Support frame-based workflow for the org-roam buffer #2379

Open
1 task done
colonelpanic8 opened this issue Aug 14, 2023 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #2380
Open
1 task done

Support frame-based workflow for the org-roam buffer #2379

colonelpanic8 opened this issue Aug 14, 2023 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #2380

Comments

@colonelpanic8
Copy link

Brief Abstract

The org roam persistent buffer does not really support a workflow that makes use of frames.

Long Description

Currently the org-roam buffers visibility is defined as follows:

(define-inline org-roam-buffer--visibility ()
  "Return the current visibility state of the persistent `org-roam-buffer'.
Valid states are 'visible, 'exists and 'none."
  (declare (side-effect-free t))
  (inline-quote
   (cond
    ((get-buffer-window org-roam-buffer) 'visible)
    ((get-buffer org-roam-buffer) 'exists)
    (t 'none))))

This makes the assumption that if the org-roam buffer is not part of the active frame that it is not visible and therefore should not be updated. It should be possible to do better than this, but it may require some platform specific things and external tools.

Proposed Implementation (if any)

In my package frame-mode, I have a function that relies on xwinfo to determine if a frame is viewable:

https://github.com/IvanMalison/frame-mode/blob/ae2366969927c9f89ea07c999bef382b0b47cac1/frame-mode.el#L83

This is obvious not only platform, but display server (XOrg vs Wayland etc.) specific, which is not ideal. Still, I think that maybe the move here is to allow the user to specify a visibility function and default to the current behavior.

Please check the following:

  • No similar feature requests
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant