"Just interacted" in this case must, I'm afraid, mean "now", i.e. "on receipt".
My intention below is for the _receiver_ to generate an event which causes the Xserver to update its internal timestamp. I know you don't like it, but I think this is really what is required. Yes, I know there are possible race conditions, but there are race conditions in X as well, it's just that you're dealing with a single event/keyboard-focus stream in the X case. Whereas we actually DO need to programmatically move focus from outside. The problem with the whole focus-stealing-prevention design as it now stands is that it doesn't account for the very case we need, i.e. "remote agent activates process via something other than an X event". Bill On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 18:33, Elijah Newren wrote: > On 8/17/06, Bill Haneman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmm, thinking sideways a bit... > > Always welcome. :-) > > > is there some event we could explicitly fire (inside either atk-bridge > > or libgail -i.e. within the application's process space) which would > > which process? (The process that actually received the user > interaction event (which I called the "sender" in my previous email), > or the one that will be handling the user interaction event by opening > a window (the "receiver")?) > > > have no real effect on the running app but which would result in the > > Xserver updating its user-time stamp? > > Since I don't know which process you are referring to, here's some > guesses at what you're trying to get at: > > Do you mean having the "receiver" ping the Xserver for a timestamp and > then updating its user-time property accordingly? That wouldn't work, > as not only would it break the non-user-interaction cases, it has all > kinds of nasty race conditions. > > Or are you thinking in terms of having the "sender" somehow update the > user-time of the process it is trying to send a message to? Something > like that may be tenable, though we'd have to be careful about > how/when it got updated relative to receiving the do_process message. > > > Seems to me that's what we want - to tell the application "hey, the user > > just interacted with you!". > > No, not at all. Messages and assumptions like this is exactly what > caused the huge focus-on-map security & other bug mess in the first > place. We want to tell the application "hey, the user interacted with > you at time <x>" which is a world different than "hey, the user 'just' > interacted with you". 'just' carries no useful information with it > and results in all kinds of bugs. > > Hope that helps, > Elijah _______________________________________________ Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel
