Programs using X freeze while switching windows

Ondrej Mihalyi mihalyi at matfyz.cz
Wed Sep 29 09:20:05 CEST 2004


Hello everybody,

as I'm the one who started this thread, I'll eventually try to prevent a nothing-solving discussion about having/not having an option to whatever.

I'd like to say, that however I don't like that applications are stuck while using Alt+Tab feature, it's only a problem when I press Alt for a long time so that audio buffers get empty and sound pauses.  On the contrary, it was not a "pathetic" decision to do it the way it is, I really like that xfwm shows position of windows.  And remember I just said it's a flaw, rather cosmetic one, not that it's a bug.

After getting into the problem thanks to Olivier's replies, I strongly advise you to keep the grab unless there is a way to draw window positions without the grab.  I believe that most users prefer that nice feature over getting rid of the small flaw.

Actually my point was to ask, whether there is a way to do the things in a different way without changing the functionality, but I learned that it IS a problem, and that's what I wanted to know.

Thanks to Olivier for clarification, Cheers and keep the good work :)

Ondro

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:34:11 +0200
Olivier Fourdan <fourdan at xfce.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 21:44, Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> > xfwm4 requires the server grab during the alt+tab procedure, so it's not
> > a flaw in xfwm4.
> 
> Yeap, it's not a "pathetic flaw", it's a design decision... (note that
> could be a pathetic decision as well, but that's another story)
> 
> Anyway, I can remove the grab, the code is designed to work w/out
> grabbing the server, but that means that xfwm4 won't draw the window
> frames shadow during the alt+tab cycling like it does now.
> 
> Yes, I could make it "optional", with yet another "hidden" option, but
> quite frankly I think we are adding far too much options, and we loose
> focus on the main goals.
> 
> So what do you guys think, remove or keep the grab? I think we should
> remove it, it's not the first time we get such a feedback from the users
> (we even got a bug report  for that some times ago).
> 
> Cheers,
> Olivier.
> -- 
>  - Olivier Fourdan - fourdan at xfce.org - http://www.xfce.org - 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xfce mailing list
> Xfce at xfce.org
> http://lunar-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
> http://www.xfce.org
> 



More information about the Xfce mailing list