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
=====================================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2001-01-04
See also 4457472. Commit to fix in Tiger.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2001-05-18
Reproducible on build 1.4.0-beta_refresh-b70.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
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]
