Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!newstop!sun!argv
From: argv@turnpike.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan Heller)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: OSF statements about OPEN LOOK
Message-ID: <142318@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 12 Sep 90 21:44:24 GMT
References: <9009052346.AA27999@erik.uucp> <1990Sep6.153723.20246@alphalpha.com> <141998@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <999@richsun.cpg.trs.reuter.com>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: O'Reilly && Associates
Lines: 51

In article <999@richsun.cpg.trs.reuter.com> emike@cpg.trs.reuter.com (E. Mike Durbin) writes:
> The problem is that XView applications DEPEND on the window manager dismissing
> popup, and even worse, killing the application.  For example, Sun's Calendar
> Manager will use a popup window for entering an appointment.  With out OLWM,
> there is NO WAY do dismiss this popup if it defaults to being push pinned in!
> In X, if you zap any client window, XLIB DOES AN EXIT, killing the entire
> application.

I'm kind of at a loss for an appropriate response because I don't
know of any particular case where this is absolutely true.  You 
may be right -- I'm not disputing it; although I have strong
reservations (see last paragraph).  However, from what *I* have
seen of the code, XView does everything within the X protocol to 
map and unmap windows.  There is nothing sneaky going on with the
window manager to do stuff like this.

Note:
There *are* cases where XView registers OL or (more simply) XView
specific atoms that only an OPEN LOOK window manager will understand.
However, the Motif toolkit is just as "guilty" of doing this sort of
thing.  As far as I know, the ICCCM doesn't say anything restricting
applications and window managers from communicating with one another
above and beyond what the ICCCM has outlined.

Therefore, I put "guilty" in quotes because it's not necessary _wrong_
to do such things.  One can't condemn XView (or OpenLook) for doing
the types of things that allow it to specify an interface such as
push-pins, drag and drop, system menu hints, menubar info, headers,
footers, etc...  On the same token, one can't condemn Motif for doing
the same type of thing (which it does).

However, your arguments are heard.  There is a good reason for wanting
an application to communicate well with any arbitrary window manager.
That way, one isn't tied to using olwm or any arbitrary window manager.
But to do that, you end up with a toolkit and window manager that is
a lowest common demoninator and thus less dynamic as it could be.

> Also, there is NO WAY to quit the application without OLWM or zapping
> the window.
This simply isn't true.  It's not that olwm (or XView) is without
bugs, but I have never had this problem.

> This, to me, it the only architectural flaw with Open Look (or is it
> with XView?).
Sounds like you have a problem with your particular platform.

--
dan
----------------------------------------------------
O'Reilly && Associates   argv@sun.com / argv@ora.com
Opinions expressed reflect those of the author only.