Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!xylogics!merk!spdcc!tauxersvilli!alphalpha!nazgul From: nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: OSF statements about OPEN LOOK Message-ID: <1990Sep6.153723.20246@alphalpha.com> Date: 6 Sep 90 15:37:23 GMT References: <9009052346.AA27999@erik.uucp> Organization: asi Lines: 51 In article <9009052346.AA27999@erik.uucp> randy@erik.UUCP (Randy Brown) writes: >uunet!auspex!guy (Guy Harris) writes: >>Does Motif have its own protocols for communication between Motif >>clients and "mwm"? > >I have read that the modal dialog features of Motif depend on mwm in >what is probably a private protocol. This allows either "application >modal" (user can interact with other clients) or "system modal" (answer >my question or turn off the power...). Keyboard focus traversal under Application modal won't work without Mwm, system modal works fine. >Motif is another interesting feature I'm eager to try under alternate >window managers, but I have no evidence that it uses a private protocol. Keyboard traversal is entirely in the widget set. >The pushpin protocol Open Look uses may be private (I've seen pushpins >work under mwm, but I could be experiencing an alternate reality), but >another point to consider is that I doubt that pushpin failure would >wreak as much havoc as modality failure... If the application is SURE >it's behaving modally and isn't, some interesting behavior could >result. As I remember there were two things in Open Look. One was pushpins, the other was style sheets, although maybe the latter isn't true (must have been the same alternate reality :-). I agree that application modal is potentially a more dangerous problem, however I think it's easier to fix (set the rest of the app insensitive) than pushpins. Not having pushpins means that you either let the user get annoyed or you create an alternative mechanism for keeping dialogs up. In Motif this is the difference between the "Ok" button (which takes it down) and the "Apply" button, which keeps it up. You have both and the user decides which to select. Given that XView isn't made with a widget set I'm not sure how easy it would be to add an extra button to your dialog boxes. But in any case, when it comes to protocols outside of the ICCCM neither is 100% pure. But are we really seriously trying to extract facts from a marketing brochure? Seems like a pretty hopeless task to me! -- Alphalpha Software, Inc. | motif-request@alphalpha.com nazgul@alphalpha.com |----------------------------------- 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | Proline BBS: 617/641-3722 I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.