Re: startup-notification support for nautilus as a launchee

Sorry for my slow response...

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:26:57 +0100, Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 16:51 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > As Crispin pointed out, though, perhaps an ugly hack is in order--if
> > no startup-id is provided then ping the xserver for a timestamp
> > (gdk_x11_get_server_time) and use that for the new window instead of
> > spewing a warning.  It'd still partially break
> > focus-stealing-prevention (since the timestamp would be too late), but
> > given that nautilus windows (hopefully) are only ever launched due to
> > user interaction, it may be better than the alternative.  I can code
> > it up if you want, it'd only be a few lines.
> I'm not sure how this will affect things, so I don't know if I want this
> or not. Do I? :)

Actually, I don't know.  We could wait until closer to release to see
if there's still big problems with gnome_url_show and such...

Anyway, current behavior is that if nautilus is launched without
startup-notification and another instance already exists, then the new
window is thought to have been launched at the last time the user
interacted with one of the previously existing nautilus windows. 
Typically, that means the new window shows up without focus and behind
whichever window has focus.  The hack would mean we obtain a timestamp
that doesn't correspond to when nautilus was launched but some time
slightly later.  The bug it would introduce is that if the user tries
to interact with some other application after launching the new
nautilus window but before we ping the xserver for a timestamp, then
this would mean the new nautilus window steals focus when it

It's basically just trying to choose between which bug is worse. 
Obviously, the best solution is to make sure nautilus is always
launched with startup-notification.  But as a temporary bandaid until
that is ensured, the hack may make sense as something that gets rid of
a fairly annoying and obvious bug and trading it for a much less
frequent and perhaps subtle.

> I commited your patch. With that in, is window->details->startup_id
> needed at all now?

I see no need for it.

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