Re: Window manager decorations

Re: Window manager decorations

[Jan D.]

Hello.

I'd like to make a change that will determine the type of WM at runtime.
However, to do so, I will change the fullscreen move routines to something
more generic (i.e. compensate for any kind of move, not just to 0, 0).

As I see it w32 also uses the FULLSCREEN_MOVE_WAIT emum value.  But
is it really needed? Is x_check_fullscreen_move needed at all on w32?  The
reason I ask is I have the impression that w32 does not have any window
managers at all (or just one depending on how you see it).  Therefore the
behaviour should be consistent.

I think only X needs this adjustment, so I'd prefer to keep the relevant
new parts in the x output structure.  This means that FULLSCREEN_MOVE_WAIT
would also be moved and renamed to something in xterm.h only.  This will
break w32 build, so I'd like to know how to fix it again (remove
x_check_fullscreen_move or keep the renamed name in the generic frame
structure).  BTW, I do not have the capability to build on w32.


Thanks,

	Jan D.

> Hello,
> 
> I'm suffering from the recent change, probably the one below:
> 
> ---
> 2003-09-19  Jan DjESC,Adrv  <jan.h.d@swipnet.se>
> 
>         * xterm.c (x_set_offset): Take window manager decorations
>         into account.
> ---
> 
> Consider the following code:
> 	(modify-frame-parameters (selected-frame) '((top . 0))
> 
> There are two kinds of window managers.
> 
> 	Type A: does not adjust the height of a window title bar
> 		e.g. enlightment
> 	Type B: adjust the height of a window title bar
> 		e.g. window maker
> 
> Before the change:
> 	Type A: the title bar is hidden over the top of screen.
> 	Type B: the title bar lays just on the top of screen.
> 
> After the change:
> 	Type A: the title bar lays just on the top of screen.
> 	Type B: A space whose height is the same of the title bar 
>                 created between the top of screen and the title bar.
> 
> Thus, this change is kind to Type A but not friendly to Type B.

Re: Window manager decorations

[Jason Rumney]

"Jan D." <jan.h.d@swipnet.se> writes:

> As I see it w32 also uses the FULLSCREEN_MOVE_WAIT emum value.  But
> is it really needed? Is x_check_fullscreen_move needed at all on
> w32?

I don't think so. That code was blindly copied from xterm.c.

> This will break w32 build, so I'd like to know how to fix it again
> (remove x_check_fullscreen_move or keep the renamed name in the
> generic frame structure).  BTW, I do not have the capability to
> build on w32.

I suggest removing the function and its callers from w32term.c.
If there is any need for a function like this on Windows, then we can
add it back, but it is likely to look different than the X version
anyway.

Re: Window manager decorations

[Jan D.]

> "Jan D." <jan.h.d@swipnet.se> writes:
> 
> > As I see it w32 also uses the FULLSCREEN_MOVE_WAIT emum value.  But
> > is it really needed? Is x_check_fullscreen_move needed at all on
> > w32?
> 
> I don't think so. That code was blindly copied from xterm.c.
> 
> > This will break w32 build, so I'd like to know how to fix it again
> > (remove x_check_fullscreen_move or keep the renamed name in the
> > generic frame structure).  BTW, I do not have the capability to
> > build on w32.
> 
> I suggest removing the function and its callers from w32term.c.
> If there is any need for a function like this on Windows, then we can
> add it back, but it is likely to look different than the X version
> anyway.

Okay, I did that.

	Jan D.