Subject: FVWM: Timeoutable activeplacement?

From: eyal elad <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 18:25:43 +0300 (IDT)

Good morning,

	As a general rule, I don't like activeplacement. I get along fine
with windows that pop up whereer they want - simply because I usually open
a window when I need it. On the other hand, I sometimes want to have it.
As a first step I have a menu which turns Active on and off. But what I
thought could be neat is an ActivePlacement which has a time-out
parameter. A window-frame appears, and if I don't move the mouse for a few
seconds (because I'm either busy, or just away), the window self-appears
randomally (or Smartly or whatever). What do you think?

PS:	Apparantly, ActivePlacemnt is not as smart as ctwm's? In ctwm you
can resize the window while placing it. Now _this_ is a productivity tool
IMO.

 _
(_  /  _    /          ( E-mail pigeons nest in binary trees )
(__/__(/\_(/	http://www.cs.bgu.ac.il/~elad

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

---

From: Eric Brandwine <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 14:10:10 -0400 (EDT)

> randomally (or Smartly or whatever). What do you think?
This should be relatively easy to implement.  Could even steal some code
from the autoraise module...  Which raises the question, Should there be a
placement module?  Can there be, if the server is grabbed during
placement?  Hmmmmm....

> can resize the window while placing it. Now _this_ is a productivity tool
This is a moldy oldie.  It was first implemented (I believe), in uwm, the
original window manager that was dropped starting X11R3.  It is in twm and
all derivatives, mwm, and a couple of others.  Even xmag uses the same
logic.  Personally, I never used it, found it useless.  However, to each
his own....  

Draw up a table of the mouse buttons, and the behavior that you expect for
each.  Might not be so hard.

ericb

---

From: eyal elad <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 22:17:21 +0300 (IDT)

Good morning,

> from the autoraise module... 

<Gulp>? On what grounds? I mean, they both need timing, but what can there
be common to both? (OTOH, I hardly looked at the sources, and I know
almost nothing about X programming, so...)

> Which raises the question, Should there be a

I have no idea regarding the second question... But here's a sad point
about all this modules stuff: The strongest AIZ that I can find at work
starts "No more proccesses"ing me after very few clients. I run
FvwmTaskBar (oh, yeah, didn't I mention it? I use fvwm95 20.42a) so it
comes to a point I start killing xbiffs and so one by one. This is one
disadvantage I see for using modules. Another thing is that starting a
module is still relatively slow. Often it takes 3 to 7 seconds for
FvwmIdentify to fire up. (This is on a range of machines: Pentium/Linux,
RS6000/AIX, SGIs/irix, Suns Sparcs & Ultras running SunOS and Solaris).

> logic. Personally, I never used it, found it useless.  However, to each

Yap, even xmag. I was not around for X11R3.  In fact, for quite some time
I thought "R5" was just a part of the name, and not a revision number...
At times it can be very useful, for example, when you spawn a new netscape
window with button-2, you can resize it to not hide your current reading
matirial. I also thought about (long ago) a combo move/resize module,
which will allow one to draw a rectangle on the screen (like you draw a
rectangle in a drawing program), and this changes a window's geometry at 
once. Much quicker than moving-then-sizing when you want to take an
annoying window out of the way.

> each.  Might not be so hard.

Hmm, now that you mentioned xmag, I never quite got the grip of its button
selections. I would use:

-	mouse movement = window movement

-	button-1 down = nop

-	button-1 release = accept geometry, show window

-	button-2 drag = change window size. This moves a point which
is the original bottom-left corner, although you can make it any
other corner by dragging it to the right (ahem, left) place.

-	button-3 click = I don't care where you put the window. Places the
window randomally or smartly out of the way.

-	button-3 click while button-1 or -2 are down = toggle a flag,
which will cause the window to iconify as soon as we decide where we want
it. 

I think it's a good set: Whatever you want to do with this window, it's
at most just one drag and one click away. Plus it let's you change your
mind, something that xmag, I think, won't let you do.

Yours,

 _

---

From: Eric Brandwine <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 15:36:01 -0400 (EDT)

> almost nothing about X programming, so...)
Exactly the timing.  Ther rest of the code (the 2 types of placement) has
already been implemented.  Now, all we need to do is to connect them
together.

> about all this modules stuff: The strongest AIZ that I can find at work
AIZ?  I am unfamiliar with this term.

> RS6000/AIX, SGIs/irix, Suns Sparcs & Ultras running SunOS and Solaris).
I have a dual headed Sparc 5, 64megs of RAM, Solaris 2.5.  FvwmIdent pops
up almost instantaneously, as do xterms and other small clients.  And you
should not run out of processes unless you have LOTS of ram in a very
heavlily loaded machine, or there is some accounting scheme.

It is an accepted fact that the modules should be dynamically loaded
libraries, much like the modules from the linux kernel.  It is just that
there is no easy way of doing this in an architecture/compiler indep sort
of way.  So multiple processes it is.

> annoying window out of the way.
That sounds like a good idea.  It would require some major code changes
though...

> which will cause the window to iconify as soon as we decide where we want
Well, your button choices are not what I would have chosen, but they seem
to work.  I will take a look, and see what I can do, (in between bursts of
actual work that someone is paying me for.... ).  We'll see.

ericb

---

From: eyal elad <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 23:02:01 +0300 (IDT)

Good morning,

> > I haveno idea regarding the second question... But here's a sad point

So do I. It was supposed to be AIX. Every one of a bunch of RS6000s, with
32MB RAM plus 64MB VM get out of processes really soon. This is of course
nothing to blame fvwm with, but OTOH three xterms are alot more than three
modules. Any day.

> heavlily loaded machine, or there is some accounting scheme.
Nope, no schemes in here.

> of way.  So multiple processes it is.

At the time I worked with SCM, a scheme interpreter. Although I didn't use
this feature, it does support some sort of dynamically loadable objs, And
it is already implemented for many, many platforms (including VMS and
Amiga).

<pause as I browse through the code>

OTOH, I can't say the SCM code excels in clarity. But it is GPL. 

> > which will allow one to draw a rectangle on the screen (like youdraw a

> That sounds like a good idea.  It would require some major codechanges
> though...

Probably... 

> > -	button-3 click = I don't care where you putthe window. Places the

> to work. 

What /would/ you choose?

> I will take a look, and see what I can do, (in between bursts of

You get paid? Ahh, the lucky ones. <g>
 _
(_  /  _    /          ( E-mail pigeons nest in binary trees )
(__/__(/\_(/

---

From: Kai Grossjohann <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Aug 1997 14:52:20 +0200

>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 1997, eyal elad said:

  Elad> PS: Apparantly, ActivePlacemnt is not as smart as ctwm's? In
  Elad> ctwm you can resize the window while placing it. Now _this_ is
  Elad> a productivity tool IMO.

Fvwm groks mouse button two just like twm and derivatives do.  But it
doesn't grok mouse button three for vertical maximization while doing
active placement :-(

kai
-- 
Signature?  What signature?

---

From: Eric Brandwine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 11:12:54 -0400 (EDT)

> nothing to blame fvwm with, but OTOH three xterms are alot more than three
Something is wrong.  I have seen a Sparc SLC, 20MHZ, 16mb RAM running
hundreds of processes at once.  Not very quickly, but.....  Your machines
are doing something very strange.

> What /would/ you choose?
I like the button 3 thing that you chose.  My version would probably have
been a subset of yours.  Of course, the right way to do it is to make it
specifiable in the .fvwmrc file...

ericb

---

From: eyal elad <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 21:24:44 +0300 (IDT)

Good morning,
 
> are doing something very strange.

Could be, could be... It's probably the AIX's fault. Of what I've learnt
in OS course (Where the Multics is regarded innovative...) UNIX use a
static array to store the process table. Perhaps a kernel recompilation is
needed. Unfrotunately(?) the AIX on my university are tagged "zero
maintanince, wait till they all die". Nobody is going to recompile
anything for them.

> specifiable in the .fvwmrc file...

Of course. Orally. <g>
 _

---

From: "Cloyce D. Spradling" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 15:56:47 -0500

On Mon, Aug 11, 1997 at 09:24:44PM +0300, eyal elad wrote:
: > Something is wrong.  I have seen a Sparc SLC, 20MHZ, 16mb RAM running
: > hundreds of processes at once.  Not very quickly, but.....  Your machines
: > are doing something very strange.

: Could be, could be... It's probably the AIX's fault.

It's definitely AIX's fault.  If nobody's fiddled with it, the per-user
process limit is set at something ridiculously small.  (32, I think, under
4.1.5.  I don't know beans about 3.x.)

: Perhaps a kernel recompilation is
: needed. Unfrotunately(?) the AIX on my university are tagged "zero
: maintanince, wait till they all die". Nobody is going to recompile
: anything for them.

Nope!  Luckily (again, under 4.x), no recompilation is needed.  What's needed
is a user with root authority which will run a command like:

chdev -l sys0 -a maxuproc=512

Well, that's how mine is set, anyway.  But I'm the only user on mine, so the
extra resources that are taken up with the higher limits aren't multiplied
by large numbers of other people.  YMMV, but I certainly don't think you
should be running out of processes as soon as you say you are.

--
Cloyce D. Spradling                     IBM doesn't even know I do this, so I
[email-masked]                   certainly won't say I speak for them.