On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 09:09:53AM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 10:45:12PM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote: > > 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! > > There have been several examples in the past. Search the mailing > list for them and use the old tarball they appeared in. Please > don't waste my time generating artificial buggy situations for > you. >
The only example I found is the well known "rxvt selection problem" and ... it happens on "H"old. We are not agree on a problem it seems to me that you can make an effort and give me an example (as I said I worked hard on this, this last few days). Or should claim that there is no to see one? > > 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. > > It can't. > > > I think that Dan idea is ok (I do not want to fight too much > > more). > > I don't. Sometimes it's better to live without certain "features" > for the sake of code maintenance. > There is no reason for a function of the form AddToFunc I FvwmEventHandle_config_window Echo "config_window" to be aborted because the pointer is grabbed. Again a complex func can do so many things that controling the grabbing is necessary IMO. > > 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. > > It's a gkrellm problem. Period. Not every bug in applications > can be circumvented by the window manager. > Yes it is a gkrellm problem (and maybe a gtk 2.2 problem). The problem I've with my "old" gkrellm come from FvwmEvent. What about the others examples I give with FvwmEvent? > > > > 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) > > Well, good job in writing that mail. Although it was long, it was > easy to understand. > My feeling is that you do not want to do something (on this subject) whatever the problems we can discover with the current code, whatever I can or any body else can say and whatever the solution we can propose (an optional pre cmd) ...etc. So yes it is easy to answer my mails. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
