Fwd: Re: QLabel kills our KMessageBoxes (and others)

[Thomas Zander]

Can this be picked up by the WM spec people?
Or am I mistaking that (KDE) people want it to be fixed on X11 so we can have 
proper width-for-height resizing of dialogs? I gathered from the k-c-d thread 
that this is a priority.  So I don't want this to fall between the cracks.

My apologies if this has been picked up in the mean time and I just missed 
that.

Thanks in advance!

Forwarding my mail from Thursday 25. October 2007 15:09:12 
-------------
Lubos Lunak wrote:
> On Friday 19 of October 2007, Thomas Zander wrote:
> > Why is the rule to never query the client a hard rule?
>
>  It is not a hard rule. It's just not a very good idea to have the WM
> blocked somewhere deep in the code waiting on a client that may take ages
> to respond.

Why would it be more blocking then 'normal' resizing?
The solution that you can use is that the window manager sends a message to 
the client that supports width-for-height informing him about the new width.  
And keeps on sending such messages as long as the user resizes the window.  
All of this is completely asynchronous (and the way that X11 already works, 
no change there).
The difference is that the window can respond with a suggested height for the 
user-selected width after which the WM resizes the window.

Since everything is (and always has been) based on message queues, there is no 
blocking. So I'm not sure what you mean with your reply above.

> > I can understand
> > there might be problems in responsiveness for some windows, but at the
> > same time the problem this thread addresses can be solved in the correct
> > manner.  I'm sure that puts some weight in the scale.
>
>  Nothing is perfect, and the gain/effort ratio may put more weight on the
> other scale. Trying something almost correct first seems like a better
> option to me.

Which is fair enough, you are the maintainer after all.
I just want to be sure we both understand each other. And currently I'm 
thinking we don't since the perfect solution is actually completely possible 
without any disadvantages that I know of.
-------------
-- 
Thomas Zander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20071112/0ae692d2/attachment.sig>