Re: [E-devel] Patch for focus settings

[Tamas M. <en...@ma...>]

Hi Raster,

Have you had the time to look into this patch I sent earlier?

/Tamas

On Mon, 23 May 2005 14:02:41 +0200, Tamas Morvai <en...@ma...> wrote=
:

>
> Hi,
>
> I modified the patch according to your comments.
>
> /Tamas
>
> On Sun, 22 May 2005 05:17:43 +0200, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
> <ra...@ra...> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 May 2005 11:18:15 +0200 "Tamas Morvai" <en...@ma...>
>> babbled:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I made a little patch for setting the focus like in e16.
>>> It can only be configured at compile time, but if this patch is ok I
>>> intend to
>>> make it configurable via ipc.
>>>
>>> The possible values of FOCUS_SETTING
>>>
>>> 0: normal mode
>>> 1: new windows get the focus
>>> 2: only dialogs get the focus
>>> 3. only dialogs whose owner is focused get the focus
>>
>> hmm - this needs changing. 1.
>> always put double () around if statements
>> ie
>> NOT:
>>
>> if (owner && owner =3D=3D ecore_x_window_focus_get())
>>
>> BUT this:
>>
>> if ((owner) && (owner =3D=3D ecore_x_window_focus_get()))
>>
>> second - i am not a fan of setting  variables to dynamic results at
>> declaration
>> time - split declaration and setting. ie:
>>
>> NOT:
>>
>> Ecore_X_Window owner =3D ecore_x_icccm_transient_for_get(win);
>>
>> But this:
>>
>> Ecore_X_Window owner;
>>
>> owner =3D ecore_x_icccm_transient_for_get(win);
>>
>> I have my reasons.
>>
>> anyway - you also do a query of this each time. the transient for win
>> should be
>> stored in the borders icccm props on manage (and whenever the property
>> changes)
>> and then just access from there. remember a get like this is a round
>> trip to x.
>> that means the wm sends a request and sits and waits for x to reply,
>> doing
>> nothing in between. doing this too often is BAD. that's why we try and
>> get the
>> properties and store them locally and access the local copies/versions
>> all the
>> time. and yes - it needs to become an e_config option not a #define :)
>> what do 1
>> 2 and 3 mean precisely anyway :)
>>
>
>