FreeLists / haiku-appserver / [haiku-appserver] Re: partly paiting

[Adi Oanca <adioanca@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Axel,

Axel Dörfler wrote:
> Adi Oanca <adioanca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 10/17/05, Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > >      I agree sending one message only. Let's stay with this 
> > > > solution and
> > > > see if all works OK. I just am afraid of ::DetachCurrentMessage()
> > > > because, if this method is called from ::FrameMoved/Resized() the
> > > > user will be dumped into debugger with a seg fault; more checking 
> > > > is
> > > > required for "case B_VIEW_RESIZED/MOVED:"
> > >
> > > I don't think you have to, as I don't think there is any point in 
> > > using
> > > this method from these methods - and if you really think otherwise, 
> > > we
> > > could still emulate the single message approach, as Stephan 
> > > proposed.
> > > I don't think it's used that often anyway in any function that 
> > > deals
> > > with BView messages.
> >
> >   You may never know what the user wants to do. What it matters is
> > that we have a bug and it should be fixed.
>
> It's not really a bug - it's a deviation from standard behaviour that 
> should just be documented. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to use 
> DetachCurrentMessage() in that case, anyway.

	:-) I simply do not agree. Any succession of instructions that crash 
the application seems like a P1 to me.

> But even if, we could still have some code like:
> current = CurrentMessage();
> FrameResized();
> if (current != CurrentMessage())
>         /* do whatever is appropriate */

    I fixed this already. :-D Yesterday, I think.

> >   How are you going to emulate a single message? ::CurrentMessage()
> > would return the original message anyway.
>
> And we can't change this, having the source and all?

    Ah... right... friends...


bye,
Adi.