XFWM4 Window Problems, Part Deux

Olivier Fourdan fourdan at xfce.org
Wed Nov 15 22:29:29 CET 2006

Hash: SHA1

Olivier Fourdan wrote:
> Milosz Derezynski wrote:
>>> On 11/15/06, *Mike Massonnet* <mmassonnet at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:mmassonnet at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> just reappeared in the taskbar.  If you add gtk_widget_show (GTK_WIDGET
>>>> (window)) it works... but I know you will refuse this line of code...
>>> Yeah, i could add this line of code, but anyone dare to explain me why i
>>> need to add this _only_ for XFWM4?
> That's simply plainly false. what happens here is that the window switch
> to "Initial state is Iconic State" ICCCM WM_HINTS when you call
> gtk_widget_hide() in on_window_state_event()
> Look, try yourself, do xprop on your window and look for "Initial state
> is Iconic State.".
> It happen that metacity is currently broken and do not implents this
> properly. Kwin does, xfwm4 does, but metacity does not. It used to in
> previous version, but not in current version. Try in an earlier version
> of metacity/gnome and you'll see by yourself.
> A proof? Try "xterm -iconic" in xfwm4, in kwin and in metacity: In kwin
> and xfwm4, the window starts iconic as it should. In metacity it does
> not... That's exactly the same that happen with your app.
>>> Seriously your project _does_ claim high standards compliance and holds
>>> this up as one of it's major points/benefits/whatever the right for this
>>> is (sorry non native english speaker here) and please don't come with
>>> this "I just work on it in my free time" statement.
> Seriuously xfwm4 does implement the standard, while metacity does not.
> It happen (as already explained earlier) that your program in broken,
> but it doesn't show in metacity because metacity does *not* implement
> the protocol properly.
>>> So, given the both above statements, anyone care to explain me because
>>> of which spec (or perhaps brokenness, after all ?) of XFWM4  i need to
>>> add gtk_widget_show() explicity just for XFWM4
> Really, I'm doing my best, but it sounds like a useless waste of time.
> You do not listen not even try to understand what I'm desesperatly
> tryingto tell you...
> Again it's not just for xfwm4. Did you actually try with kwin, or any
> descent good window manager? I guess you did not, otherwise you would
> not claim such nonsense.
>>> Just btw, if you look at the code of gtk_window_present() in the gtk+
>>> source tree, it does already call _show() so what is the point here
>>> anyway ?
> Because if the gtk_widget_hide() in on_window_state_event() that trigger
> the start iconic flag. I already explained that.
>>> I'm riding so much on a minor issue because you boast all the time with
>>> standards complicance, yet now you suggest me to use a workaround; and
>>> if it's not a workaround then i'd seriously like to know by which spec
>>> this behaviour  is defined, and different from all other WMs (and also
>>> implying that all other WMs are broken or at least not fully compliant).
> Afgai, it's metacity that is broken, you cannot just trash all other
> good window managers because metacity is broken.
>>> Anyone? (again)
> Again and again and again, but you really don't seem to try to understand...

And the standard is here :


The explanation of initial_state is given there:

"The value of the initial_state field determines the state the client
wishes to be in at the time the top-level window is mapped from the
Withdrawn state, as shown in the following table:

State 	Value 	Comments
NormalState 	1 	The window is visible
IconicState 	3 	The icon is visible"

Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the Xfce4-dev mailing list