Re: client-side-windows vs metacity

[Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com>]

On Sat, 2009-01-31 at 12:48 -0500, Owen Taylor wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-01-31 at 14:22 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:

> > Hmm, what do you mean by current sprite window?
> 
> Sorry, "the (innermost) window that GDK thinks that the cursor is over".
> It's terminology from the X server internals, which tend to use "sprite"
> and "cursor" somewhat interchangeably.

Ah.

> > In general we don't just ignore it, we'll send leave/enter events on any
> > to gdk known window inbetween the native window we got the event on and
> > the known window at the position the leave event specifies.
> >> However, in this case the known window at that position is the toplevel
> > itself, so we don't send any events.
> 
> The description above is a bit odd, I think you have to remember the
> window where the pointer last was and take that into account in
> determining where to send events, but perhaps you are just simplifying
> in the description.

Yeah, in the general case thats what happens. I was sort of half-stuck
in the metacity case.

> Yes, I agree that you have to select for enter/leave on all native
> windows, or you won't have the needed value of the 'subwindow' field.

We also need to send leave events from the current virtual sprite window
to the native window where we deliver the inferior leave with subwindow
NULL.

I'll try to implement this next week then.