Re: issues for future version

[Mathias Hasselmann <mathias hasselmann gmx de>]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Sasha_Vasko osca state mo us wrote:

> > On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Sasha_Vasko osca state mo us wrote:
> >
> > > > Sasha_Vasko osca state mo us wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > - Pseudo-Transparency support (aka Root pixmap ID).
> > > >
> > > > Could this be implemented using parent-relative backgrounds for the
> > > > client window and the frame window? The WM would set a hint on the
> root
> > > > window to indicate support for this kind of pseudo-transparency. It
> > > > would work nicely with virtual roots - the virtual root would be the
> > > > parent of the frame window, so its background would be visible rather
> > > > than the background of the (possibly obscured) root window. How would
> > > > the root pixmap ID work with virtual roots?
> > >
> > > But that does not allow you to do shading and more fine-tuned tinting,
> > > [...]
> >
> >    Why realtime shading/tinting for a static background image? For
> > IceWM I added the possibility to announce another pixmap per
> > ROOT_PIXMAP_ID than displayed on the desktop. Yes that's really waste of
> > memory. But this approach blasting fast, allows amazing effects (your
> 
> Do you mean you create more pixmaps - one for each shade/tint ? AFAIK
> - that's the exact cause of the fact that Eterm is such a memory hog.

	I have exactly two images in 1.0.9: DesktopBackgroundImage and
DesktopTransparencyImage.


	- when both configuration strings are empty no background image is
	  loaded
	- when only the first one is set the image specified is loaded and
	  the pixmap id generated is passed to XSetWindowBackgroundPixmap
	  and _XROOTPMAP_ID
	- when both are specified and differ the first one specifies the
	  image announced per XSetWindowBackgroundPixmap and the second
	  one specifies the image announced per _XROOTPMAP_ID.


	As said before: Quick, dirty and completely optional.

> Do you use ROOT_PIXMAP_ID or _XROOTPMAP_ID ? Latter is what's used by
> E and AfterStep.

	Excuse me for being not precise: In using the name _XROOTPMAP_ID.


> > imagination is the limit) and people insisting on this eyecandy normally
> > should have more than enough memory.
> >
> >    Something that really bugs me is the reaction of some apps on the
> > destruction of the ROOT_PIXMAP_ID (e.g. when you restart the window
> > manager): Some apps simply crash if you are not careful enough (e.g.
> > gnome-terminal). Other apps don't/hardly recover when your are careful
> > (XChat, Eterm). Being careful in my terms means removing of the
> > ROOT_PIXMAP_ID as soon as it becomes invalid.
> 
> Naturally. You have to update property first then wait for some time,
> so that all the interested clients get PropertyNotify, and only then can
> you destroy the Pixmap. Otherwise clients may attempt to use invalid
> pixmap when ConfigureNotify comes in front of PropertyNotify.

	Hmm... Shouldn't it help simply to call XSync before destroying
the pixmap?


Ciao,
Mathias
-- 
WWW:           http://www.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~hasselma/
PGP/GnuPG:     1024-Bit DSA: ID 55E572F3, 1024-Bit RSA: ID EAAF7CF1