<AWT Dev> [9] Review request for 8020443: Frame is not created on the specified GraphicsDevice with two monitors
Oleg Pekhovskiy
oleg.pekhovskiy at oracle.com
Thu Feb 6 04:49:38 PST 2014
Hi Alexander,
thank you for your comments, and let me pay attention to the wording:
I wrote "struts" but not "coordinates of the struts".
I did it intentionally: here is the dump of
XToolkit.getScreenInsetsManually()
method on the second screen:
Root bounds: java.awt.Rectangle[x=0,y=0,width=2048,height=768]
Screen bounds: java.awt.Rectangle[x=1024,y=0,width=1024,height=768]
Window #33554540 bounds[x=1024, y=24, width=1024, height=744]
struts[left=1089, right=0, top=0, bottom=0]
Window #31457297 bounds[x=1024, y=0, width=1024, height=24]
struts[left=0, right=0, top=24, bottom=0]
As we see struts could be 0, even if their edge is not the same as the
root window edge.
So if we are talking about:
left_start_y, left_end_y, right_start_y, right_end_y, top_start_x,
top_end_x, bottom_start_x
of _NET_WM_STRUT_PARTIAL
I agree with you, but if we are talking about:
left, right, top, bottom
which is the case, I don't, and treat my comments as correct.
Thanks,
Oleg
On 02/06/2014 02:34 PM, Alexander Zvegintsev wrote:
> Hi Oleg,
>
> I am a little concerned about this comment:
>> * struts*could be*relative to root window bounds, so
>
> but specification[1] clearly says:
>> All coordinates are root window coordinates.
> so I think "could be" should be replaced by "are" (there is no need
> for a new webrev)
>
> Otherwise, the fix looks good to me.
> BTW, I like your idea with frame maximization to check insets.
>
> [1]
> http://standards.freedesktop.org/wm-spec/wm-spec-latest.html#idp6337880
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander.
> On 02/06/2014 10:21 AM, Oleg Pekhovskiy wrote:
>> Hi Alexander,
>>
>> thanks for the comments,
>> please see the next version of fix:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bagiras/8020443.3/
>>
>> Updates:
>> 1. Left usage of root window coordinates because they passed to
>> XToolkit.getScreenInsetsManually() in Rectangle, not just Dimension.
>> Added comment for struts check.
>>
>> 2. Rewrote the test to make it accurate.
>> Tested on Ubuntu 12.04, Solaris 11 and Oracle Linux 6.4.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Oleg
>>
>> On 02/04/2014 07:50 PM, Alexander Zvegintsev wrote:
>>> Oleg,
>>>
>>> please see inline
>>>
>>> On 02/04/2014 05:00 PM, Oleg Pekhovskiy wrote:
>>>> Hi Alexander,
>>>>
>>>> thank you for the review!
>>>>
>>>> 1. The problem is that I didn't find that root window ALWAYS starts
>>>> with 0, 0 in X11 docs.
>>>> Could you please point such statement out to avoid uncertainty?
>>> Unfortunately, I cannot find any document which clearly specifies
>>> this. is the root of this hierarchy.
>>> On my understanding root window is the root of windows treehierarchy
>>> and all other windows are children or descendants of it.
>>> So root window is the origin for all other windows and and I assume
>>> that it has (0,0) coordinates always and I would
>>> be surprised if it not.
>>>
>>>> 2. Checking insets against screen width and height can fail too.
>>>> Example:
>>>> 1st screen (0, 0, 1024, 768) - x, y, width, height
>>>> 2nd screen (1024, 0, 1920, 1080)
>>>> Struts for the 2nd screen could be (1074, 0, 20, 0) - left, right,
>>>> top, bottom.
>>>> So left strut 1075 fits in 1920 but should be 50 as inset.
>>> Yes, my check will fail on this case.
>>>> PS: Just curious: you said that screen (1000, 50, 1000, 1000) is a
>>>> valid case.
>>>> Is it valid for testing environment? As I see screens are left-top
>>>> aligned.
>>>> It means that if two screens are located from left to right, they
>>>> both have y == 0 regardless of their height.
>>> It is a valid case, screens can be arranged in any order, screens
>>> even can be overlapped, may have empty spaces between.
>>> (and we definitely will not support last 2 cases).
>>>
>>> My previous example was a little abstract, here is the real one with
>>> screens aligned on bottom edge:
>>> Screen #1 (0,0, 1920, 1080)
>>> Screen #2 (1920, 30, 1680, 1050) with top inset 35
>>>
>>> It is unlikely that we will meet such configuration, but who knows.
>>>
>>> Since this test will run on machines with environment close to
>>> default I propose to made an assumption
>>> that insets are not greater that a quarter (or 1/3?) of width and
>>> height (and add a comment why we do that
>>> and why test may fail):
>>>
>>> if (insets.left >= bounds.width / 4
>>> || insets.right >= bounds.width / 4
>>> || insets.top >= bounds.height / 4
>>> || insets.bottom >= bounds.height / 4) {
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Alexander.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Usually insets are much less than dimensions of a screen and so
>>>> strut minus screen edge should be less
>>>> than summary dimension of neighbor screens.
>>>> Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Oleg
>>>>
>>>> 04.02.2014 15:28, Alexander Zvegintsev wrote:
>>>>> Hi Oleg,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am just curious about adding rootBounds.x and rootBounds.y, it
>>>>> looks redundant to me.
>>>>> Is there a case when a root window have coordinates with non-zero
>>>>> values?
>>>>>
>>>>> MultiScreenInsetsTest.java:
>>>>>> 62 if ((bounds.x != 0 && insets.left >= bounds.x)
>>>>>> 63 || (bounds.y != 0 && insets.top >=
>>>>>> bounds.y)) {
>>>>> This check will fail for screen with
>>>>> [x=1000,y=50,width=1000,height=1000] bounds and top inset 100,
>>>>> but it is a valid case.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we should check insets against screen width and height:
>>>>> if (insets.left >= bounds.width
>>>>> || insets.right >= bounds.width
>>>>> || insets.top >= bounds.height
>>>>> || insets.bottom >= bounds.height) {
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise fix looks good to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Alexander.
>>>>> On 02/04/2014 10:26 AM, Oleg Pekhovskiy wrote:
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> please review the second version of fix:
>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bagiras/8020443.2/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It turned out that struts must be checked and corrected from all
>>>>>> sides
>>>>>> to become the proper screen insets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Oleg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/21/2014 06:31 PM, Oleg Pekhovskiy wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> please review the fix
>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bagiras/8020443.1/
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8020443
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Referring to the standards, we must calculate insets the special
>>>>>>> way for Xinerama:
>>>>>>> http://standards.freedesktop.org/wm-spec/1.3/ar01s05.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _NET_WM_STRUT_PARTIAL
>>>>>>> "The start and end values associated with each strut allow areas
>>>>>>> to be reserved which do not span the entire width or height of
>>>>>>> the screen. Struts MUST be specified in root window coordinates,
>>>>>>> that is, they are /not/ relative to the edges of any view port
>>>>>>> or Xinerama monitor."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the fix checks if the insets have absolute values and if so
>>>>>>> makes them relative to each screen.
>>>>>>> The issue occurred when the Frame was created with the location
>>>>>>> by default.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Oleg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/awt-dev/attachments/20140206/13d537e4/attachment-0001.html
More information about the awt-dev
mailing list