From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: GTK frame changes Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:14:59 +0900 Message-ID: <87ws6qufng.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <4A4CADCB.8000304@gmx.de> <4A4CC3D7.40109@swipnet.se> <4A4CD73D.2080802@gmx.de> <4A4CDDF2.4030608@swipnet.se> <4A4CF264.6040306@gmx.de> <4A4D0E0E.70405@swipnet.se> <4A4DE33F.4060006@gmx.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1246623371 757 80.91.229.12 (3 Jul 2009 12:16:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:16:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Jan =?iso-8859-1?Q?Dj=E4rv?= , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: grischka Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 03 14:16:04 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MMhgS-0007oq-0g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:16:04 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37089 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MMhgQ-0003lA-SV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:16:02 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MMhg5-0003kC-3t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:15:41 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MMhfw-0003hw-5y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:15:36 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48542 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MMhfv-0003hg-Ug for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:15:31 -0400 Original-Received: from mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.223]:47303) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MMhfv-0007x6-8a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:15:31 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9D901537C0; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:15:22 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 89AAC1A31C8; Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:14:59 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <4A4DE33F.4060006@gmx.de> X-Mailer: VM 8.0.12-devo-585 under 21.5 (beta29) "garbanzo" 5bbff3553494 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:111953 Archived-At: grischka writes: > Jan Dj=E4rv wrote: > > The XProtocol specification (the oldest I have is R6.8, the newest is= =20 > > 7.4, they say the same thing) says this: > >=20 > > "Whether or not a server is implemented with internal > > concurrency, the overall effect must be as if individual requests > > are executed to completion in some serial order, and requests > > from a given connection must be executed in delivery order (that > > is, the total execution order is a shuffle of the individual > > streams). Jan is missing a number of issues, I think. First, there are (at least) two clients and *two* connections involved here. One is Emacs's, the other is the WM's. This leaves a lot of room for nondeterminism ("shuffling") in the order in which configuration events arrive on Emacs's connection. Second, the process that generates the ConfigureNotify event is *not*, and cannot be, atomic. When the WM has set the SubstructureRedirect flag on the root window, a request by Emacs to configure one of its (X) windows will propagate up the toolkit hierarchy to a shell window, which will then execute X protocol. However the reaction of the server to that protocol request is *not* to configure the window and send a ConfigureNotify event. It is to *do nothing* except send a ConfigureRequest event to the window, which will be processed by the WM (because of the substructure redirection), not Emacs. The WM *then issues the configuration request again*, which will succeed this time because the WM "owns" the substructure redirection. > I'm somehow confused what they mean by reply here. If events are sent > before replies then replies must be something else. Yes. An event is sent as a reaction to something that happens to or in a window. A reply is something that the server says as an informational matter in response to a request, which doesn't need to specifically refer to any window. > Just with WM redirection (metacity here) the ConfigureNotify > clearly arrives about 2 ms later and the behavior is completely > unimpressed by XSync. "metacity"? As a developer of an X client, that's not my favorite WM.... metacity's idea of "well-behaved" is a bit more restrictive than fdo's standards specify.