bug-gnustep
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [patch #7470] Fix mouse behaviour in Windows 95 and Macintosh menu s


From: Fred Kiefer
Subject: Re: [patch #7470] Fix mouse behaviour in Windows 95 and Macintosh menu styles
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:35:51 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; de; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125 SUSE/3.0.11 Thunderbird/3.0.11

I will do that later today.

As for the periodic event handling, what I don't like is that we stop
them twice. This looks wrong to me.

Fred

Am 21.02.2011 05:14, schrieb Christopher Armstrong:
> Hi Fred
> 
> I agree that the capture mouse behaviour does seem extreme, but it is
> the only way that you can implement reliable popup menus (on X11 and
> Windows, although I haven't tested the latter). As far as I know, there
> is no other method to receive clicks outside your window except for
> grabbing the mouse (and this makes sense, as applications shouldn't be
> receiving events outside their set of windows). Even the grabbing method
> that we are using isn't the best but it should be enough to prevent the
> common set of problems. 
> 
> I don't know about the periodic event stopping code. It doesn't seem to
> cause problems for me. I could take a closer look, but there is probably
> a reason for it (even if it isn't documented yet). The only issue I have
> with this method is that it chews alot of CPU time.
> 
> Would you please commit this for me if you're okay with it now, as I
> don't have committer access (I do have GNU copyright assignment though).
> 
> Thanks
> Christopher Armstrong
> 
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 15:33 +0000, "Fred Kiefer" <INVALID.NOREPLY@gnu.org>
> wrote:
>> Follow-up Comment #2, patch #7470 (project gnustep):
>>
>> I still don't like the _captureMouse: call, but at least this is now
>> implemented safely.
>>
>> There is a lot that I don't understand about this long method, but one
>> line
>> seems to be obviously wrong. That is the stopping of periodic events. Why
>> is
>> this done here as well as outside of this method? But this hasn't changed
>> with
>> your patch, you may as well just leave it broken.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]