On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Ethan Blanton <[email protected]> wrote: > Nathaniel Smith spake unto us the following wisdom: >> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Ethan Blanton <[email protected]> wrote: >> > ... with WM_CLIENT_MACHINE passed through transparently. This seems >> > the most appropriate course of action. I'm not even convinced the >> > (via xpra) should be there. >> >> The one downside to that is that WM_CLIENT_MACHINE may be used for >> other purposes as well, e.g.: >> http://standards.freedesktop.org/wm-spec/wm-spec-1.3.html#KILLINGWINDOWS > > I don't see the problem, what am I missing?
If the xpra client goes off to la-la land, then modern WMs will notice, and pop up a "hey, this app is unresponsive, do you want to kill it?" dialog. And if you click "yes", then it'll actually kill the app (not just disconnect it from the X server and leave it spinning in the background and silently chewing all your cpu, no matter how traditional that is, hi netscape 4). But this only works if WM_CLIENT_MACHINE indicates that it's on the same host and kill(2) will work. This is a bit of a finicky detail, though, and of course, xpra contains no bugs, so this will never come up. I'm not sure if there are any other non-cosmetic uses of WM_CLIENT_MACHINE... there could be in principle, but maybe not in practice. -- Nathaniel _______________________________________________ Parti-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.partiwm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parti-discuss
