floating windows - Motif

This is a discussion on floating windows - Motif ; is there a simple means to build a floating child window (not a dialog box or others widgets that becames a child of the windows manager) with the constraint that it can't move outside of the parent. thank you...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: floating windows

  1. floating windows

    is there a simple means to build a floating child window (not a dialog
    box or others widgets that becames a child of the windows manager) with
    the constraint that it can't move outside of the parent.

    thank you


  2. Re: floating windows


    "sosroot" wrote in message
    news:1138039897.702338.19260@g49g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
    > is there a simple means to build a floating child window (not a dialog
    > box or others widgets that becames a child of the windows manager) with
    > the constraint that it can't move outside of the parent.
    >
    > thank you
    >

    Well, this is just what any normal widget's window is - it is not
    re-parented by the WM, and it is constrained to be inside its parent.

    What do you mean by "floating"? If that means its position can change, what
    will cause it to change?
    --
    Fred L. Kleinschmidt
    Boeing Associate Technical Fellow
    Technical Architect, Software Reuse Project




  3. Re: floating windows

    By floating I mean a free window which can be moved by the user (drag
    with the mouse) to change the position, which can be killed (poped
    down) and recreated (poped up) but remain inside the main W parent.

    Noredine Maafa


  4. Re: floating windows

    sosroot wrote:
    > is there a simple means to build a floating child window (not a dialog
    > box or others widgets that becames a child of the windows manager) with
    > the constraint that it can't move outside of the parent.


    Multidocument interfaces are not considered good things in the X world.
    The protocol permits to create windows inside windows and to reposition
    a window inside its parent but the application must define a
    positioning
    policy and provide the interactive mechanisms. The window manager
    will not perform such role. This may be a drawback or an advantage,
    depending o the point of view.

    Once upon a time there was an MDI implementation for Motif (see
    MDI-1.0.1-README at http://ftp.x.org/contrib/widgets/motif/). It is a
    historical curiosity nowadays.

    --- Casantos


  5. Re: floating windows

    It is very curious, whene I look to the window manager like MWM or CDE,
    I see a parent window with childs windows which do what i said, is it a
    mistake ?


  6. Re: floating windows

    nojunk@gate.cpmet.ufpel.tche.br wrote:
    > sosroot wrote:
    >
    >>is there a simple means to build a floating child window (not a dialog
    >>box or others widgets that becames a child of the windows manager) with
    >>the constraint that it can't move outside of the parent.

    >
    > Multidocument interfaces are not considered good things in the X world.


    Why?

    > The protocol permits to create windows inside windows and to reposition
    > a window inside its parent but the application must define a
    > positioning
    > policy and provide the interactive mechanisms. The window manager
    > will not perform such role. This may be a drawback or an advantage,
    > depending o the point of view.
    >
    > Once upon a time there was an MDI implementation for Motif (see
    > MDI-1.0.1-README at http://ftp.x.org/contrib/widgets/motif/). It is a
    > historical curiosity nowadays.
    >
    > --- Casantos
    >


  7. Re: floating windows

    sosroot wrote:
    > By floating I mean a free window which can be moved by the user (drag
    > with the mouse) to change the position, which can be killed (poped
    > down) and recreated (poped up) but remain inside the main W parent.
    >
    > Noredine Maafa
    >


    Sure, I know what you're saying, like a tearoff menu that you could
    then not drag beyond the borders of the window from which the menu was
    torn, right? I'm not sure what resource to set to enable that
    behavior...

  8. Re: floating windows

    Russell Shaw wrote:
    > nojunk@gate.cpmet.ufpel.tche.br wrote:
    >
    >> sosroot wrote:
    >>
    >>> is there a simple means to build a floating child window (not a dialog
    >>> box or others widgets that becames a child of the windows manager) with
    >>> the constraint that it can't move outside of the parent.

    >>
    >>
    >> Multidocument interfaces are not considered good things in the X world.

    >
    >
    > Why?


    Mostly, anti-Microsoft prejudice.

    The only rational argument I can think of (in 2 minutes...) is that it
    violates the 'principle of minimum astonishment' to have an MDI
    implementing a WM with a look&feel different from the platform WM. Since
    it is extremely difficult to identify the platform WM, to say nothing of
    emulating umpteen different ones (W2K, WXP, MWM, Gnome, KDE2, KDE3, to
    name only those I actually have at hand!)

    >
    >> The protocol permits to create windows inside windows and to reposition
    >> a window inside its parent but the application must define a
    >> positioning
    >> policy and provide the interactive mechanisms. The window manager
    >> will not perform such role. This may be a drawback or an advantage,
    >> depending o the point of view.
    >>
    >> Once upon a time there was an MDI implementation for Motif (see
    >> MDI-1.0.1-README at http://ftp.x.org/contrib/widgets/motif/). It is a
    >> historical curiosity nowadays.


    Well it was implemented as a C++ class, completely orthogonal to
    standard widget development.

    >>
    >> --- Casantos
    >>



    --
    Michel Bardiaux
    R&D Director
    T +32 [0] 2 790 29 41
    F +32 [0] 2 790 29 02
    E mailto:mbardiaux@mediaxim.be

    Mediaxim NV/SA
    Vorstlaan 191 Boulevard du Souverain
    Brussel 1160 Bruxelles
    http://www.mediaxim.com/

  9. Re: floating windows

    Michel Bardiaux wrote:
    >>> Multidocument interfaces are not considered good things in the X world.

    >> Why?

    >
    > Mostly, anti-Microsoft prejudice.
    >
    > The only rational argument I can think of (in 2 minutes...) is that it
    > violates the 'principle of minimum astonishment' to have an MDI
    > implementing a WM with a look&feel different from the platform WM. Since
    > it is extremely difficult to identify the platform WM, to say nothing of
    > emulating umpteen different ones (W2K, WXP, MWM, Gnome, KDE2, KDE3, to
    > name only those I actually have at hand!)


    I think the reason is different - MDI actually implements
    a window manager within a single application.
    MS, contrary to common accusations, exposed the API to do this,
    so applications did this.
    We could not do this in Motif, so we said it was bad ;-)

    Seriously, if I iconize the window, I want a single
    place to look for that window to pop it up, not several ones,
    depending on the application.

    There is one application of floating window which moves
    in sync with the main window - the toolbar in DDD.
    http://www.gnu.org/software/ddd/registers.png
    Not exactly what the original poster was asking about, but
    it is something that can be done in Motif.

    Another idea: I would consider tabbed browsing actually
    an evolution of MDI, which works quite well.
    I think the reason for this is, that you can not obscure your
    tabs, so the interface is direct all the time. The most
    annoying MDI feature was to have a "full screen" window, which
    you had to minimize, in order to see, if you had any other windows.

    And multiple desktops extend the tabbed browsing idea, treating
    the whole window manager a multiple-window application. This time,
    Unix/Linux took the lead over MS, so we like to think that this
    is a good practice.

    Dušan Peterc
    http://www.arahne.si

  10. Re: floating windows

    In article <4nmga3-hc3.ln1@main.anatron.com.au> Russell Shaw writes:
    >nojunk@gate.cpmet.ufpel.tche.br wrote:


    >> Multidocument interfaces are not considered good things in the X world.


    >Why?


    It's essentially a religious issue.

    I'm of the anti-MDI religion myself -- the window manager is for managing
    windows. When you put windows inside another window, then you are becoming
    the window manager within that window, and it may or may not be consistent
    with the window manager the client is using.

    And I just plain hate using MDI interfaces.

    But some people like them. I don't understand why, but I just accept that.

    But given the choice (and all other things being equal), I will choose non-MDI
    every time. And even if all things aren't equal, a non-MDI interface would
    have to be pretty piss-poor before I'd choose an MDI interface over it.

    -Pete Zakel
    (phz@seeheader.nospam)

    Osborn's Law:
    Variables won't; constants aren't.

  11. Re: floating windows

    On 24 Jan 2006, arahne@arahne.si wrote:

    > I think the reason is different - MDI actually implements
    > a window manager within a single application.
    > MS, contrary to common accusations, exposed the API to do this,
    > so applications did this.


    I never had a problem with MDI as a user. However, it is untrue that
    MS exposed this API. For instance menus in an SDI interface used
    function calls in Win3.1. The MDI interface had to send message to
    the parent to allow the menus to be switched.

    This was a totally different API mechanism and was not documented at
    all (Ie, popMenu [or whatever it is] didn't explicitly say that it was
    invalid for MDI menus). Moreover, you MDI app could function with the
    menu function calls for a long time and then would one day crash.

    There are other oddities between 16 bit MDI/SDI windows. This was not
    malicious on MS part. They patch MDI in from Word (or something). I
    believed that people forced MS hand by asking how Word was doing this.
    I also believe that they included it in the kernel (or at least the
    GUI DLLs). Being forced to document this may have resulted in some
    quick documentation. It was probably an experimental hack, which
    resulted in the schism in the API.

    However, I would take issue within anyone purporting that MS had
    "exposed" this API in Win 3.1. It is not an accusation, it is a fact
    that MDI documentation was poor to abysmal. I was not programming in
    Motif at the time...

    fwiw,
    Bill Pringlemeir.

    --
    Sex at age 90 is like trying to shoot pool with a rope. - George Burns

  12. Re: floating windows

    Pete nospam Zakel wrote:
    > In article <4nmga3-hc3.ln1@main.anatron.com.au> Russell Shaw writes:
    >
    >>nojunk@gate.cpmet.ufpel.tche.br wrote:

    >
    >>>Multidocument interfaces are not considered good things in the X world.

    >
    >>Why?

    >
    > It's essentially a religious issue.
    >
    > I'm of the anti-MDI religion myself -- the window manager is for managing
    > windows. When you put windows inside another window, then you are becoming
    > the window manager within that window, and it may or may not be consistent
    > with the window manager the client is using.
    >
    > And I just plain hate using MDI interfaces.
    >
    > But some people like them. I don't understand why, but I just accept that.
    >
    > But given the choice (and all other things being equal), I will choose non-MDI
    > every time. And even if all things aren't equal, a non-MDI interface would
    > have to be pretty piss-poor before I'd choose an MDI interface over it.


    The MDI is really an application-specific WM. That is useful, because it knows
    more about the apps requirements than the system WM.

    If i open a program with three top-level windows like:

    +----------------------------------------------------+
    | Menubar |
    +----------------------------------------------------+
    +-----+ +--------------------------------------------+
    | | | |
    | P | | |
    | a | | |
    | n | | Work area |
    | e | | |
    | l | | |
    | | | |
    | | | |
    | | | |
    | | | |
    | | | |
    | | | |
    | | | |
    | | | |
    +-----+ +--------------------------------------------+


    How does the app tell the WM that the relative positioning of
    the windows should be like this?

    With MDI, these windows exist in a global app window and so are
    automatically managed.

  13. Re: floating windows

    In article <384ja3-dh2.ln1@main.anatron.com.au> Russell Shaw writes:

    >How does the app tell the WM that the relative positioning of
    >the windows should be like this?


    I have no problems with windows that use multiple widgets that are tiled
    in the window -- that's standard.

    MDIs, however, allow you to have multiple internal windows that are
    independently mobile and can overlap, hide each other, be moved out of sight,
    resized, etc., as if the main window were a workspace.

    That's what I hate.

    Dockable panels and resizable connected internal areas (where you use a slider
    that connects two widgets to resize both at once) are quite nice, however. But
    that's not what an MDI is.

    If I want to manage my windows within an MDI-like environment I'd rather
    use a VNC server because then I can use the window manager of my choice.

    -Pete Zakel
    (phz@seeheader.nospam)

    "Well, well, well! Well if it isn't fat stinking billy goat Billy Boy in
    poison! How art thou, thou globby bottle of cheap stinking chip oil? Come
    and get one in the yarbles, if ya have any yarble, ya eunuch jelly thou!"

    -Alex in "Clockwork Orange"

  14. Re: floating windows

    Pete nospam Zakel wrote:
    > In article <384ja3-dh2.ln1@main.anatron.com.au> Russell Shaw writes:
    >
    >
    >>How does the app tell the WM that the relative positioning of
    >>the windows should be like this?

    >
    >
    > I have no problems with windows that use multiple widgets that are tiled
    > in the window -- that's standard.
    >
    > MDIs, however, allow you to have multiple internal windows that are
    > independently mobile and can overlap, hide each other, be moved out of sight,
    > resized, etc., as if the main window were a workspace.
    >
    > That's what I hate.


    I recognize that, and would not *think* of imposing MDI on anyone. But I
    resent being forced to SDI myself (eg MS-Word-2003 imposes SDI, or if an
    MDI option exists I could not find it - and I hate MS for that!)

    >
    > Dockable panels and resizable connected internal areas (where you use a slider
    > that connects two widgets to resize both at once) are quite nice, however. But
    > that's not what an MDI is.


    *I* hate docking. I even hate the 'optimized' placement done by some WMs
    like KDE.

    The use of tabbed-books has been suggested, but I dont like that either,
    because I consider tabs very useful inside a document itself, and using
    tabs-within-tabs would be hopelessly confusing.

    >
    > If I want to manage my windows within an MDI-like environment I'd rather
    > use a VNC server because then I can use the window manager of my choice.
    >




    --
    Michel Bardiaux
    R&D Director
    T +32 [0] 2 790 29 41
    F +32 [0] 2 790 29 02
    E mailto:mbardiaux@mediaxim.be

    Mediaxim NV/SA
    Vorstlaan 191 Boulevard du Souverain
    Brussel 1160 Bruxelles
    http://www.mediaxim.com/

  15. Re: floating windows

    It depends on what you call MDI.

    Using Firefox tabs is MDI in the sense that, well, you have Multiple
    Documents instead being force to have one per window. And yet it's not
    MDI, because it's not the brain-dead "it's just like your desktop but
    inside our window".

    So which is it?

    I agree with Russell that MDI is simply application-defined window
    management, that can be done for good or evil. The evil, as I see, is
    not making it application-specifc enough to the point that it's
    basically a useless a duplicate of the window manager.

    As I see, MS is responsible for promulgating the latter terrible style
    (anyone remember Program Manager?) , but mostly for making "wizards" so
    that a stub application is created in this style. Then when creating an
    app, a developer is asked "do you want to support single or multiple
    documents?" and they invariably answer multiple because More is Better!

    Many people think of MDI as "when you have movable, resizable windows
    with titlebars and are iconfiable and is supiciously like my desktop"
    and thus all MDI, even good MDI, is trash.

  16. Re: floating windows

    ST wrote:
    > It depends on what you call MDI.
    >
    > Using Firefox tabs is MDI in the sense that, well, you have Multiple
    > Documents instead being force to have one per window. And yet it's not
    > MDI, because it's not the brain-dead "it's just like your desktop but
    > inside our window".
    >
    > So which is it?
    >
    > I agree with Russell that MDI is simply application-defined window
    > management, that can be done for good or evil. The evil, as I see, is
    > not making it application-specifc enough to the point that it's
    > basically a useless a duplicate of the window manager.
    >
    > As I see, MS is responsible for promulgating the latter terrible style
    > (anyone remember Program Manager?) , but mostly for making "wizards" so
    > that a stub application is created in this style. Then when creating an
    > app, a developer is asked "do you want to support single or multiple
    > documents?" and they invariably answer multiple because More is Better!
    >
    > Many people think of MDI as "when you have movable, resizable windows
    > with titlebars and are iconfiable and is supiciously like my desktop"
    > and thus all MDI, even good MDI, is trash.


    I disagree strongly. *You* hate it, you're entitled to that, and you're
    even entitled not to have MDI forced on you. *I* am comfortable with it,
    and IMNSHO am entitled to that, and also entitled not to have SDI forced
    on me.

    --
    Michel Bardiaux
    R&D Director
    T +32 [0] 2 790 29 41
    F +32 [0] 2 790 29 02
    E mailto:mbardiaux@mediaxim.be

    Mediaxim NV/SA
    Vorstlaan 191 Boulevard du Souverain
    Brussel 1160 Bruxelles
    http://www.mediaxim.com/

  17. Re: floating windows

    Michel Bardiaux wrote:

    > I disagree strongly. *You* hate it, you're entitled to that, and you're
    > even entitled not to have MDI forced on you. *I* am comfortable with it,
    > and IMNSHO am entitled to that, and also entitled not to have SDI forced
    > on me.


    Where did I say I hate MDI?

    I never said anything about forcing a particular style. In one app I
    maintain (http://www.nedit.org), I was a strong proponent for letting
    the users choose between and MDI vs SDI style.

    My point is the window-manager-in-a-window MDI style is poor, and there
    are much better ways of doing MDI. I don't consider Mozilla's tabs as
    "windows in window" since you can't arbitrarily overlap or iconize in them.

  18. Re: floating windows

    ST wrote:
    > Michel Bardiaux wrote:
    >
    >> I disagree strongly. *You* hate it, you're entitled to that, and
    >> you're even entitled not to have MDI forced on you. *I* am
    >> comfortable with it, and IMNSHO am entitled to that, and also
    >> entitled not to have SDI forced on me.

    >
    >
    > Where did I say I hate MDI?


    Quoting your own message (the one to which I replied), with my own
    emphasis added:

    > It depends on what you call MDI.
    >
    > Using Firefox tabs is MDI in the sense that, well, you have Multiple
    > Documents instead being force to have one per window. And yet it's
    > not MDI, because it's not the brain-dead "it's just like your desktop

    ^^^^^^^^^^
    > but inside our window".
    >
    > So which is it?
    >
    > I agree with Russell that MDI is simply application-defined window
    > management, that can be done for good or evil. The evil, as I see,

    ^^^^
    > is not making it application-specifc enough to the point that it's
    > basically a useless a duplicate of the window manager.

    ^^^^^^^
    >
    > As I see, MS is responsible for promulgating the latter terrible

    ^^^^^^^^
    > style (anyone remember Program Manager?) , but mostly for making
    > "wizards" so that a stub application is created in this style. Then
    > when creating an app, a developer is asked "do you want to support
    > single or multiple documents?" and they invariably answer multiple
    > because More is Better!
    >
    > Many people think of MDI as "when you have movable, resizable windows
    > with titlebars and are iconfiable and is supiciously like my desktop"
    > and thus all MDI, even good MDI, is trash.

    ^^^^^

    Lots of negatively loaded words! What will it be if you really hate
    something?

    >
    > I never said anything about forcing a particular style. In one app I
    > maintain (http://www.nedit.org), I was a strong proponent for
    > letting the users choose between and MDI vs SDI style.


    Well, if you give me a choice between tabbed-MDI and SDI, but
    steadfastly (not to say stuboornly) refuse to use WM-like MDI for any
    reason other than its inavailability in your toolkit, I consider you
    force a style on me.

    >
    > My point is the window-manager-in-a-window MDI style is poor, and

    ^^^^
    > there are much better ways of doing MDI. I don't consider Mozilla's
    > tabs as "windows in window" since you can't arbitrarily overlap or
    > iconize in them.



    --
    Michel Bardiaux
    R&D Director
    T +32 [0] 2 790 29 41
    F +32 [0] 2 790 29 02
    E mailto:mbardiaux@mediaxim.be

    Mediaxim NV/SA
    Vorstlaan 191 Boulevard du Souverain
    Brussel 1160 Bruxelles
    http://www.mediaxim.com/

  19. Re: floating windows

    Right. I'm saying *I* dislike the generic nested-window style of MDI,
    not MDI in general.

    > Well, if you give me a choice between tabbed-MDI and SDI, but
    > steadfastly (not to say stuboornly) refuse to use WM-like MDI for any
    > reason other than its inavailability in your toolkit, I consider you
    > force a style on me.


    Perhaps so, but we're using Motif here.

    For Windows apps, I don't think I've ever seen an app support multiple
    MDI styles (nested windows vs. tabs, as an example).

  20. Re: floating windows

    ST wrote:
    > Right. I'm saying *I* dislike the generic nested-window style of MDI,
    > not MDI in general.
    >
    >> Well, if you give me a choice between tabbed-MDI and SDI, but
    >> steadfastly (not to say stuboornly) refuse to use WM-like MDI for any
    >> reason other than its inavailability in your toolkit, I consider you
    >> force a style on me.

    >
    >
    > Perhaps so, but we're using Motif here.


    So what?

    >
    > For Windows apps, I don't think I've ever seen an app support multiple
    > MDI styles (nested windows vs. tabs, as an example).


    So what?

    --
    Michel Bardiaux
    R&D Director
    T +32 [0] 2 790 29 41
    F +32 [0] 2 790 29 02
    E mailto:mbardiaux@mediaxim.be

    Mediaxim NV/SA
    Vorstlaan 191 Boulevard du Souverain
    Brussel 1160 Bruxelles
    http://www.mediaxim.com/

+ Reply to Thread