Le 15 août 06 à 19:20, Richard Frith-Macdonald a écrit :
On 11 Aug 2006, at 13:37, Fred Kiefer wrote:
Follow-up Comment #5, bug #17377 (project gnustep):
The code we have there in the different decorators is there on
purpose. When
Alexander Malmberg implemented the window decoration handling
inside of
GNUstep gui he wanted to end up with things right the way they are
now.
I remember there was documentation for all of this, but I cannot
find it at
the momenet. The main thing was that Alex came up with three
rectangles where
OpenStep only has two, contentRect and frameRect. The third one being
screenRect, which is the actual space on the screen occupied by
the window.
Including the window decoration, from what ever source it is
coming. For the
different decorators two of these three rectangles are identical, but
different ones for the different decorators.
I would think that you should get the values you are aiming for by
using the
screenRect methods instead of the frameRect methods. But this
would make your
code incompatible to code for Cocoa or OpenStep.
As far as I can tell this screenRect code does not get used
anywhere. Perhaps
it would be better to reconsider the whole interface.
As far as I can tell without going into great detail, Alexander's
basic idea seems entirely reasonable.
I agree on this point.
The contentRect should be the rectangle of the window's content
view (ie where the user is allowed to draw) ... as in OpenStep/MacOS-X
True on GNUstep also.
The frameRect should be the rectangle that the window occupies on
the screen ... as in OpenStep/MacOS-X
It's not always the case with GNUstep, it can be the contentRect.
The screenRect should be the rectangle of the decoration view ...
either the same as frameRect if the gui is drawing decorations, or
the same as contentRect if the backend windowing system is doing it.
screenRect is always the frameRect at this time.
What I'm not sure is whether the code actually does it that way.
It doesn't.
However what you propose seems better than the current terminology. I
still think we can find a better term than screenRect. May be
backendRect?
Quentin.
--
Quentin Mathé
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Bug-gnustep mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnustep
