Re: FVWM: window resize in 2.5.7

From: Olivier Chapuis <olivier.chapuis_at_free.fr>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:45:12 +0200

On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 04:44:48PM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 03:47:56PM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 11:51:59AM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > > Somethimes I feel like talking to a wall. See my previous mails.
> >
> > I think that you do not understand me. I see bugs that I can reproduce
> > easily and I want to found a solution. I really care that fvwm can
> > work well with certain applications (e.g., Mozilla and gkrellm). And
> > what about all your work on autohide with the Schedule command and
> > FvwmEvent (via WindowShade)?
>
> I'm talking only about not grabbing the pointer in complex
> functions. Argue as much as you want, it does not work because it
> can not work reliably under X, for example because of the way
> EnterNotify and LeaveNotify events work.

Please give an example I can reproduce. I think there is some but I would
like to see one which is reproducible. The example you give cannot
happen I think (and there are problems in the code with this example).
Note, again, that aborting complex function can _also_ break things!

It is clear that you can do too much things with complex function to
have a default regarding grabbing. My hope is/was that this can be
detected in the average and add a special stuff for the unlikely
case.

I think that Dan idea is ok (I do not want to fight too much
more). I've suggested the converse: added a ForceGrab and
ForceFastGrab "dummy command" because again I cannot reproduce
(or even get one problem with my logic).
 
> If you don't like it,
> all you can do is to delay function execution until the pointer
> can be grabbed (i.e. loop forever in certain places). But - this
> may generate a deadlock with applications that grab the pointer
> and then expect that the window manager processes requests.
>

Do not underestimate my understanding of fvwm and X (however, I am not
(yet?) a big specialist of complex functions).

In a certain sense fvwm already "freeze" when grabbing fail: when
grabbing fail when you execute a complex function fvwm freeze for a few
seconds in GrabEm and in fact this cause the problem with gkrellm: If
you try to grab only once when executing complex function and abort if
this fail gkrellm can be moved smoothly.

> > You give an example and I study it carefully and found some strange
> > behavior in the current code.
> >
> > You claim that my ideas can give raise to some bug. I cannot reproduce
> > any one but I trust you.
> >
> > I say that I am ready to work on any other idea.
> >
> > Now you say that I am a wall! This is funny. Maybe you should read my
> > mail
>
> I spend much more time reading list mail carefully than you think
> (and than I should spend, for that matter).
>

My previous and _complex_ previous long mail as the following date (I
spent one day to write it, reading the code an your mails, make some
experience ...etc):

  On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 11:32:05AM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote:

Your answer arrived 20 minutes later ... :o)

Regards, Olivier
--
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 Thu Jul 31 2003 - 15:58:14 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Aug 29 2016 - 19:37:55 BST