[RFC Regression Fix] XWindowPeer override-redirect w/ metacity WM

[Jon VanAlten]

----- "Andrew John Hughes" <ahughes at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 16:22 Wed 14 Jul     , jon.vanalten at redhat.com wrote:
> > 
> > ----- "Andrew John Hughes" <ahughes at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 1 April 2010 20:47,  <jon.vanalten at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > It's been reported that applet windows that should be
> full-screen
> > > are being displayed *behind* desktop elements.  See
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=577953 for one such
> > > report.  I agree with Deepak that this is a problem not limited
> to
> > > applets, but within openjdk.  Afaict this is since
> > > http://icedtea.classpath.org/hg/icedtea6/rev/83619682858e when
> > > patches/icedtea-override-redirect-metacity.patch was removed.
> > >  Changeset indicates the patch has been upstreamed in b17.
>  Closer
> > > inspection reveals that only the first hunk is upstream, the
> second
> > > part of the patch which actually addresses the metacity wm is not.
>  I
> > > think this part of the patch needs to be restored.  Building
> locally
> > > with that line back in XWindowPeer.java I see the correct behavior
> ie
> > > desktop elements hidden by java window.  Diff attached.  Does
> anyone
> > > see anything wrong with putting this back in?
> > > >
> > > > cheers,
> > > >
> > > > jon
> > > 
> > > 
> > > See http://icedtea.classpath.org/wiki/IcedTea_JDK6_Patches
> > > 
> > > 'The Metacity issue has been marked as not a bug in the JDK, but
> one
> > > in Metacity: see S6514512.'
> > > 
> > > http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6514512
> > > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=405269
> > > 
> > > No progress since 2007.  I think the better course of action would
> be
> > > to at least ping the GNOME developers and find out what's going
> on. 
> > > I
> > > don't really want the patch back in IcedTea unless we have to,
> > > especially when upstream have specifically objected to it.
> > > -- 
> > > Andrew :-)
> > > 
> > 
> > Hate to flog the dead horse, but nobody's responded to the ping on
> the Gnome bug and with them originally taking the stance that they are
> complying with spec it seems unlikely that they will change metacity. 
> Maybe it is time for us to bring this patch back, so that users will
> have the "expected" behaviour?
> > 
> 
> Ok, add it back on HEAD but make it very clear in the ChangeLog why
> we're doing it with appropriate references to e-mails, etc.  The most
> annoying thing about these sort of cases is that we have to do all
> the
> research again to find out why we did such-and-such with a patch (as
> I'm sure you've experienced too by now).
> 

Done.  I did a quick build and test before pushing, and included hopefully enough historical datum in the ChangeLog :)