Hi,
I just got email from the owner of this bug. He said the public
version of hte bug report will get updated in the next several days
but that he had no problem with my posting it. He also seemed very
willing to work with fvwm developers towards resolution.
As you can see, it doesn't say much more than I did in my email.
I suggest you add a comment to the bug report giving your email and
who you are. Hopefully, the jdk developer will contact you and you
two can work out a resolution. I can't wait to have my netbeans windows
start at the right location :-)
Gordon
=====================================================================
xxx_at_xxxxxxxxxxx 2002-08-02
This is an fvwm2 bug, it ignores gravity when handling ConfigureRequest's.
$ wish
% wm geometry .
200x200+0+0
% wm geometry . +1+1
That request to move window to +1+1 will move the window title off-screen.
We have a code to work around this problem that is activated for E!
and IceWM, but I feel this is the wrong thing to do - when the gravity
bug is fixed, the workaround will cause problems. Since there are
several popular WMs with this bug, perhaphs the workaround shall be
conditionalized on a property or an environment variable.
Gordon Prieur wrote:
>
> Dan Espen wrote:
>
>> Gordon Prieur <Gordon.Prieur_at_sun.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I just looked at the Java bug report and they experimented with a
>>> fix for Java 1.4 and decided its a fvwm bug. The comment in the bug
>>> evaluation says that fvwm ignores gravity when handling
>>> ConfigureRequests. Perhaps one of the current fvwm developers could
>>> take a look at this and see if this is true and if it fixes the
>>> problem. If its not the problem you might try contacting Sun about
>>> bug # 4401846. Perhaps the 2 sets of developers (fvwm and Java) can
>>> get this resolved together.
>>>
>>
>> Can you tell us where you are getting this information, all I see
>> is this:
>
>
>
> I'm a Sun developer so I can look at the corporate bug database rather
> than the one you see from developer.java.sun.com. There is a more
> recent evaluation from 8/2 which isn't in the version I see from the
> java web site.
>
> I'll see if I can get authorization to send the full evaluation to
> this list (it shouldn't be hard to get). I doubt its intentionally
> not on the external page but suspect the external (ie, viewable from
> the java web pages) just isn't as up-to-date as it should be.
>
>
>
>> According to the report, it sounds like this test works fine with
>> Sawfish and
>> dtwm, and has problems only with fvwm and fvwm2.
>> xxxxx_at_xxxxx 2001-01-04
>>
>> See also 4457472. Commit to fix in Tiger.
>> xxxxx_at_xxxxx 2001-05-18
>>
>> Reproducible on build 1.4.0-beta_refresh-b70.
>> xxxxx_at_xxxxx 2001-07-11
>>
>> Ie., it looks like an open bug.
>
>
>
> Its still open but I doubt if the bug will get serious consideration
> again unless somebody can convince the JDK developer their evaluation
> is wrong (this is what I'm hoping to get the fvwm developers to do :-)
>
> Gordon
>
>
>
>
> --
> Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
> To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
> message to majordomo_at_fvwm.org.
> To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_fvwm.org.
>
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_fvwm.org.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_fvwm.org.
Received on Sat Aug 03 2002 - 15:53:24 BST