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

[Andrew John Hughes]

On 11:09 Thu 15 Jul     , Jon VanAlten wrote:
> 
> ----- "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 :)

Yes, very detailed!  Thanks a lot,
-- 
Andrew :)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net
PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint = F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA  7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8