Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!bloom-beacon!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: Dave.Rosenthal@eng.sun.COM (David Rosenthal)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: save_under quiz for xperts!
Message-ID: <9105221839.AA03571@devnull.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 22 May 91 18:33:07 GMT
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 20

> >Remember, if it truly supports save unders, the server should not be
> >sending expose events.  Thus neither A nor B is a proper solution.   
> 
> The Protocol says:
> 
>      If save-under is True, the server is advised that when
>      this window is mapped, saving the contents of windows
>      it obscures would be beneficial.
> 
> I read this to mean that setting save-under was just a hint that the
> server could ignore at any time.  With this interpretation, B does not
> violate the protocol, and is thus a proper solution.
> 
Correct.  Requesting save-under is a hint.  It does not prevent the
server from sending expose events if it wants to.  For example,  if the
server was short of memory when the save-under window obscured another
it might well decide not to do the save-under this time and just send
the Expose events.

	David.