Subject: M_WINDOW_CONFIGURE changes

From: Mikhael Goikhman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 06:40:35 +0000

Window flags is the most problematic structure passed to modules.

Several years ago we moved from passing one-word flags (32 bits) in
M_CONFIGURE_WINDOW and M_ADD_WINDOW to the whole window_flags structure,
currently 11 words! (but this depends on a compiler). Although it is easy
to maintain it is not useful and portable for 2 reasons.

First, previously it was not important that modules and fvwm itself
were compiled using the same compiler using the exactly same options.
Moreover it was possible to run modules from other versions (compiled
differently), because module protocol was not dependant on a compiler.
Additionally, window_flags were available to any module, not just the
ones linked with libfvwm, i.e. not just C or other compiled modules.

I wanted to implement window_flags parsing (about 250 flags) in perllib,
but then though it is just imposible, because (I think) even gcc stores
bitfield sub-structures differently with word align option or without it,
and I am not a big fun for compiling anything at the perllib build time.
I think a better solution is to transmit only compiler independent
arguments in the module interface.

A lot of flags are pretty internal and a module should not rely on them.
On the other hand there are some pretty known window flags (mostly the
ones that have equivalent window commands or style options) that may be
of general use, like sticky, iconified, maximized, shaded, placed_by_fvwm
and so on.

I am not against passing the whole window_flags (although it is big), but
since they may be changed at any time relying on them in modules is bad.
I want to define the most useful 32 (or 64) window flags and compose one
word from them, similarly to what we do with M_OLD_CONFIGURE_WINDOW now.
What do you think should be the most useful window flags? I guess, ewmh
flags should be included otherwise ewmh arguments passed in the same packet
would be not very useful. Probably the user defined states (32) should be
transmitted in another word too. Any thoughts?

Regards,
Mikhael.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]