On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 07:14:11AM -0600, Rich Coe wrote: > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:33:37 +0100 > Dominik Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 05:50:00AM -0600, Rich Coe wrote: > > > This patch fixes a problem with recently un-mapped windows. > > > > You can't do it this way. There is no guarantee that the stored > > window ids refer to any known window; X may recycle window ids at > > any time. > > I'm not quite sure what you're objecting to. As windows are created > and mapped, the window ids get added to FvwmContext. When the windows > are unmapped, the window id gets moved from FvwmContext to LruFvwmContext. > When the window is mapped again, it gets moved from LruFvwmContext back > to FvwmContext.
When a window is unmapped, the application usually destroys it, and fvwm can not know whether that has happened. If later a window with the same window id is mapped, it may be the same window, or it *may* be a different window that was created later by a different application and that happened to get the same window id as the earlier window that was destroyed. > > Can you give me example instructions so that I can play with the > > problem myself? In what context do you get the crosshairs? > > If you pass in a "0" window id to a command, fvwm prompts the user > with a cross-hairs to select the window. The problem is that the > fvwm code is treating 'not an active mapped window id' the same as > "0" window id. > > I'll make a test case that shows this behaviour. I've just been > distracted on another issue. Yes, please. Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt
