[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GsTcpPort (NSDefaultRunLoopMode / _handleWindowNeedsDispaly:)
From: |
David Ayers |
Subject: |
Re: GsTcpPort (NSDefaultRunLoopMode / _handleWindowNeedsDispaly:) |
Date: |
Fri, 05 Jul 2002 13:25:12 +0200 |
Thanks Rachard,
>I have just checked the source code ... normal messages are sent in
>NSDefaultRunLoopMode
>(see [GSTcpPort -sendMessage:beforeDate:]). The code waits for
>*replies* in NSConnectionReplyMode
Sorry, your right, I must have only looked at the reply-Part.
>So to prevent your problem you would have to change the way messages are
>sent as well as the way
>connections are established. I'm not sure that doing this would cause
>problems ... just worried.
...
>No it's not - but changing the send as well as the connection attempt is
>no big deal to do.
I will as soon as I can.
>> Now maybe we could make it it's (NSPasteboard) responsibility to
>> notify that the runloop is about to run in NSDefaultRunLoopMode by
>> sending some method the App or posting some notification before and
>> after. Yet I belive it should be the responsibility of the object
>> accessing the rootProxy to "warn/unwarn" of the runloop being run in
>> NSDefaultRunLoop mode. Then NSApp or the windows could provide for
>> disable/enable display.
>
>Euch.
I know, but I think its better than closing it aroung copySelection because
there are so many other places _pbs is indirctly called.
>
>I rather think apps should be coded to expect run loops to be run in any
>mode at any time.
>However, I agree that doing unexpected things is not good.
Then we might have to rework the _handleWindowNeedsDisplay-mechanisem,
(suggestion forthcomming)
>I think you should change it and try it.
>
>Just be aware that you need to change it for message sends as well as
>connection attempts.
>
>It is entirely plausible to me that using reply mode for connect/send)
>is the 'right' thing to do,
>and you have spotted a genuine bug here. I just want to be absolutely
>sure that such a basic
>change doesn't screw stuff up - so it should be tested very extensively.
>
I've got to gooffline now, but maybe you could point me to a usable Regerssion
test! (where is that Dining Philosipher's example?)
Later,
Dave