Subject: FVWM: Fvwm Styles geting lost

From: "Richard A. Guay" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:59:33 -0500 (EST)

Hi,

I have the following lines in my .fvwm2rc file (version 2.0.46):

Style "*" NoIcon
Style "XFMail" Icon, NoIconTitle, Iconbox 0 0 10 10

The first instance of XFMail seems to work fine with this definition; but if I
exit XFMail and then restart it, it no longer works as expected (ie no icon
displayed).  To get it to work again, I have to launch FvwmTalk, type in the
style line for XFMail, and then type recapture.

What is the problem?

Richard A. Guay
Network Administrator
ASIC International Inc.
[email-masked]
http://www.asicint.com

--
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: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 13:16:04 -0500

> style line for XFMail, and then type recapture.

Don't know, I just tried this and it worked for me.

Note  that the order of  style commands is  important.  If you were to
issue another 'Style "*" NoIcon' later on,  it would override the more
specific 'Style "XFMail"'.    Perhaps you  have another Style   NoIcon
somewhere else in your configuration?

--
Dan Espen                                Phone: (732) 699-5570
444 Hoes Lane  Room RRC 1C-214           E-mail: [email-masked]
Piscataway, NJ 08854
--
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: "Richard A. Guay" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 13:25:52 -0500 (EST)

> somewhere else in your configuration?

Nope.  No other Style line after the one for "XFMail".  I forgot to add the
"sticky" style.  Therefore, my entire style line for XFMail is:

Style "XFMail" Icon, NoIconTitle, Iconbox 0 0 10 10, sticky

Does this make a difference?

---

From: [email-masked] (A.J.vanWerven)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 19:34:05 +0100 (MET)

> Does this make a difference?

Nope, not a d*mn thing (well, it shouldn't...).

Are you sure the startup commands for the first and second time are also exactly the same ?

All else I can think of is run FvwmIdentify on both XFMail before and after restarting.
See if there are any differences, especially the names should be exactly the same.

It's quite silly that this doesn't work properly, so there's probably some
_very_ small, simple, almost undetectable thing wrong :-)

CIAO di Alphons.

-- 

God is real, unless declared integer.

A. van Werven
Dept. of Computer Science, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Phone: +31 6 54212683
E-mail: [email-masked]
URL: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~avwerven

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 13:42:25 -0500

[email-masked] (A.J.vanWerven) writes:
> All else I can think  of is run  FvwmIdentify on both XFMail  before
> and after restarting.  See  if there are any differences, especially
> the names should be exactly the same.
> 

Also check   for style commands  being  issued  thru  "reads" or by  a
function.

Try making your style commands the last thing in your .fvwm2rc.

---

From: Michael Tiefenback <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 22:41:20 -0500 (EST)

> style line for XFMail, and then type recapture.

I noted the followups, but no one asked whether the window parameters
(class, name) were the same for the two invocations of XFMail.  Are they?
If not, then you might get the two behaviors.  And you might have some
race-like condition from issuing some Style commands, invoking XFMail, and
then reissuing some Style commands, so that the first XFMail is invoked
with different Style flags than later ones.  The question of whether the
invocation is different for the two instances is also interesting.

Michael Tiefenback

---

From: "Richard A. Guay" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 10:46:34 -0500 (EST)

Hi,

Thanks for all the help.  I found the problem.  There is a bug in tkgoodstuff
that sends to fvwm style commands even when you tell it not to.  I will have to
dive into that code to find the problem since it is no longer maintained.

Will the tkgoodstuff be maintained into the fvwm2 distribution?  It would be a
shame to loose this nice piece of code.

Richard A. Guay
Network Administrator
ASIC International Inc.
[email-masked]
http://www.asicint.com