Peter Kümmel wrote:
I've applied attached patch which only eats page up/down keys on x11
and fixes the scrollbar scrolling bug. This is a conservative approach.
And because we really need more testing until the release it
is now in svn (I know, I know, I know,... but somehow this
thread must
Peter Kümmel wrote:
I've applied attached patch which only eats page up/down keys on x11
and fixes the scrollbar scrolling bug. This is a conservative approach.
And because we really need more testing until the release it
is now in svn (I know, I know, I know,... but somehow this
thread must
Dov Feldstern wrote:
Peter Kümmel wrote:
I've applied attached patch which only eats page up/down keys on x11
and fixes the scrollbar scrolling bug. This is a conservative approach.
And because we really need more testing until the release it
is now in svn (I know, I know, I know,... but
Dov Feldstern wrote:
> Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> I've applied attached patch which only eats page up/down keys on x11
>> and fixes the scrollbar scrolling bug. This is a conservative approach.
>>
>> And because we really need more testing until the release it
>> is now in svn (I know, I know, I
I've applied attached patch which only eats page up/down keys on x11
and fixes the scrollbar scrolling bug. This is a conservative approach.
And because we really need more testing until the release it
is now in svn (I know, I know, I know,... but somehow this
thread must find an end, and we
Peter Kümmel wrote:
I've applied attached patch which only eats page up/down keys on x11
and fixes the scrollbar scrolling bug. This is a conservative approach.
And because we really need more testing until the release it
is now in svn (I know, I know, I know,... but somehow this
thread must
I've applied attached patch which only eats page up/down keys on x11
and fixes the scrollbar scrolling bug. This is a conservative approach.
And because we really need more testing until the release it
is now in svn (I know, I know, I know,... but somehow this
thread must find an end, and we
Peter Kümmel wrote:
I've applied attached patch which only eats page up/down keys on x11
and fixes the scrollbar scrolling bug. This is a conservative approach.
And because we really need more testing until the release it
is now in svn (I know, I know, I know,... but somehow this
thread must
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:22:56PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Peter Kümmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Peter Kümmel wrote:
| | Or happens the dropping only to auto repeated keys?
|
| Only auto-repeated keys.
|
| OK, if you are really sure only auto-repeated keys will be
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 01:44:32PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:22:56PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
...
| keys, and Martin had a counter-argument, 'word completion':
then put my queue of events back in and we can controll the events
ourselves. qt does
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:22:56PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Peter Kümmel wrote:
> | >> | Or happens the dropping only to auto repeated keys?
> | >>
> | >> Only auto-repeated keys.
> | >
> | > OK, if you are really sure only auto-repeated
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 01:44:32PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:22:56PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
...
> > | keys, and Martin had a counter-argument, 'word completion':
> >
> > then put my queue of events back in and we can controll the events
> > ourselves.
On Thursday 24 May 2007 18:17:37 Peter Kümmel wrote:
The event_1 patch gives better results on systems
with a fast enough graphic card(?) but does not work
an older systems.
Jose feel free to do what you want.
What is the outcome of your email exchange with Helge and Lars on this
subject?
José Matos wrote:
On Thursday 24 May 2007 18:17:37 Peter Kümmel wrote:
The event_1 patch gives better results on systems
with a fast enough graphic card(?) but does not work
an older systems.
Jose feel free to do what you want.
What is the outcome of your email exchange with Helge and
On Thursday 31 May 2007 20:35:06 Peter Kümmel wrote:
But one patch which at least fixes the pageup/down-key scrolling
should go in before RC1.
I intend to release RC1 really soon now, so this patch must wait for RC2.
Peter
--
José Abílio
Peter Kümmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| José Matos wrote:
| On Thursday 24 May 2007 18:17:37 Peter Kümmel wrote:
| The event_1 patch gives better results on systems
| with a fast enough graphic card(?) but does not work
| an older systems.
|
| Jose feel free to do what you want.
|
|
On Thursday 31 May 2007 20:50:54 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
My patch works for all key variants. that is entered through
auto-keying. Basically all key events that we failt to handle because
auto-repeat is too fast are dropped.
What is the drawback then?
--
Lgb
--
José Abílio
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Peter Kümmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| José Matos wrote:
| On Thursday 24 May 2007 18:17:37 Peter Kümmel wrote:
| The event_1 patch gives better results on systems
| with a fast enough graphic card(?) but does not work
| an older systems.
|
| Jose
José Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Thursday 31 May 2007 20:50:54 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| My patch works for all key variants. that is entered through
| auto-keying. Basically all key events that we failt to handle because
| auto-repeat is too fast are dropped.
|
| What is the
Peter Kümmel wrote:
And no keys will be dropped?
We could also put in your patch, as it is only a problem on Linux.
Do you think we could use QApplication::synxX() instead of the X11
call?
The Qt code:
Peter Kümmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| Peter Kümmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| | José Matos wrote:
| | On Thursday 24 May 2007 18:17:37 Peter Kümmel wrote:
| | The event_1 patch gives better results on systems
| | with a fast enough graphic card(?)
Peter Kümmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Peter Kümmel wrote:
|
| And no keys will be dropped?
|
| We could also put in your patch, as it is only a problem on Linux.
| Do you think we could use QApplication::synxX() instead of the X11
| call?
|
| The Qt code:
|
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Peter Kümmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| Peter Kümmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| | José Matos wrote:
| | On Thursday 24 May 2007 18:17:37 Peter Kümmel wrote:
| | The event_1 patch gives better results on systems
| |
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Peter Kümmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Peter Kümmel wrote:
|
| And no keys will be dropped?
|
| We could also put in your patch, as it is only a problem on Linux.
| Do you think we could use QApplication::synxX() instead of the X11
| call?
|
| The
Peter Kümmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| If you go aab
| then the b, might be dropped. I have not tested.
|
| But sure, quite a few will be dropped. (which is just what we
| want if we are too slow to get them in.)
|
|
| What if you have a slow
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Peter Kümmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| If you go aab
| then the b, might be dropped. I have not tested.
|
| But sure, quite a few will be dropped. (which is just what we
| want if we are too slow to get them in.)
Peter Kümmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| Peter Kümmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| | If you go aab
| | then the b, might be dropped. I have not tested.
| |
| | But sure, quite a few will be dropped. (which is just
Peter Kümmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Peter Kümmel wrote:
| | Or happens the dropping only to auto repeated keys?
|
| Only auto-repeated keys.
|
| OK, if you are really sure only auto-repeated keys will be dropped,
| I think your patch should go into RC1.
|
| BUT, I also had a Qt based
Peter Kümmel wrote:
| Or happens the dropping only to auto repeated keys?
Only auto-repeated keys.
OK, if you are really sure only auto-repeated keys will be dropped,
I think your patch should go into RC1.
BUT, I also had a Qt based patch which only discards auto repeated
keys, and Martin
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Peter Kümmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| Peter Kümmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| | If you go aab
| | then the b, might be dropped. I have not tested.
| |
| | But sure, quite a few
On Thursday 31 May 2007 22:05:31 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Yes, quite sure
+ if (e-isAutoRepeat()) {
+ ...
+ }
Could you shove it in, please?
--
Lgb
--
José Abílio
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Peter Kümmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Peter Kümmel wrote:
| | Or happens the dropping only to auto repeated keys?
|
| Only auto-repeated keys.
|
| OK, if you are really sure only auto-repeated keys will be dropped,
| I think your patch should go into
On Thursday 24 May 2007 18:17:37 Peter Kümmel wrote:
> The event_1 patch gives better results on systems
> with a fast enough graphic card(?) but does not work
> an older systems.
>
> Jose feel free to do what you want.
What is the outcome of your email exchange with Helge and Lars on this
José Matos wrote:
> On Thursday 24 May 2007 18:17:37 Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> The event_1 patch gives better results on systems
>> with a fast enough graphic card(?) but does not work
>> an older systems.
>>
>> Jose feel free to do what you want.
>
> What is the outcome of your email exchange
On Thursday 31 May 2007 20:35:06 Peter Kümmel wrote:
> But one patch which at least fixes the pageup/down-key scrolling
> should go in before RC1.
I intend to release RC1 really soon now, so this patch must wait for RC2.
> Peter
--
José Abílio
Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| José Matos wrote:
| > On Thursday 24 May 2007 18:17:37 Peter Kümmel wrote:
| >> The event_1 patch gives better results on systems
| >> with a fast enough graphic card(?) but does not work
| >> an older systems.
| >>
| >> Jose feel free to do what you
On Thursday 31 May 2007 20:50:54 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> My patch works for all "key" variants. that is entered through
> auto-keying. Basically all key events that we failt to handle because
> auto-repeat is too fast are dropped.
What is the drawback then?
> --
> Lgb
--
José
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | José Matos wrote:
> | > On Thursday 24 May 2007 18:17:37 Peter Kümmel wrote:
> | >> The event_1 patch gives better results on systems
> | >> with a fast enough graphic card(?) but does not work
> | >> an older systems.
José Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thursday 31 May 2007 20:50:54 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > My patch works for all "key" variants. that is entered through
| > auto-keying. Basically all key events that we failt to handle because
| > auto-repeat is too fast are dropped.
|
| What is
Peter Kümmel wrote:
>
> And no keys will be dropped?
>
> We could also put in your patch, as it is only a problem on Linux.
> Do you think we could use QApplication::synxX() instead of the X11
> call?
The Qt code:
Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | José Matos wrote:
| > | > On Thursday 24 May 2007 18:17:37 Peter Kümmel wrote:
| > | >> The event_1 patch gives better results on systems
| > | >> with a fast enough
Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Peter Kümmel wrote:
| >
| > And no keys will be dropped?
| >
| > We could also put in your patch, as it is only a problem on Linux.
| > Do you think we could use QApplication::synxX() instead of the X11
| > call?
|
| The Qt code:
|
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | > Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | >
> | > | José Matos wrote:
> | > | > On Thursday 24 May 2007 18:17:37 Peter Kümmel wrote:
> | > | >> The event_1 patch gives better results
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Peter Kümmel wrote:
> | >
> | > And no keys will be dropped?
> | >
> | > We could also put in your patch, as it is only a problem on Linux.
> | > Do you think we could use QApplication::synxX() instead of the X11
> | >
Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > If you go aab
| > then the b, might be dropped. I have not tested.
| >
| > But sure, quite a few will be dropped. (which is just what we
| > want if we are too slow to get them in.)
| >
|
| What if you have
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | > If you go aab
> | > then the b, might be dropped. I have not tested.
> | >
> | > But sure, quite a few will be dropped. (which is just what we
> | > want if we are too slow to
Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | > If you go aab
| > | > then the b, might be dropped. I have not tested.
| > | >
| > | > But sure, quite a few will be dropped.
Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Peter Kümmel wrote:
| >> | Or happens the dropping only to auto repeated keys?
| >>
| >> Only auto-repeated keys.
| >
| > OK, if you are really sure only auto-repeated keys will be dropped,
| > I think your patch should go into RC1.
|
| BUT, I also had
Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> | Or happens the dropping only to auto repeated keys?
>>
>> Only auto-repeated keys.
>
> OK, if you are really sure only auto-repeated keys will be dropped,
> I think your patch should go into RC1.
BUT, I also had a Qt based patch which only discards auto repeated
keys,
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | > Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | >
> | > | > If you go aab
> | > | > then the b, might be dropped. I have not tested.
> | > | >
> | > | >
On Thursday 31 May 2007 22:05:31 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Yes, quite sure
>
> + if (e->isAutoRepeat()) {
> + ...
> + }
Could you shove it in, please?
> --
> Lgb
--
José Abílio
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Peter Kümmel wrote:
> | >> | Or happens the dropping only to auto repeated keys?
> | >>
> | >> Only auto-repeated keys.
> | >
> | > OK, if you are really sure only auto-repeated keys will be dropped,
> | > I think your
No ideas any more--also the last patch does not work
(Helge's private reply).
I've reverted the first patch,
http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/18376
because it introduces this bug,
http://marc.info/?l=lyx-develm=117944188219722w=2
detected by Dov.
The event_1 patch gives better results on
No ideas any more--also the last patch does not work
(Helge's private reply).
I've reverted the first patch,
http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/18376
because it introduces this bug,
http://marc.info/?l=lyx-devel=117944188219722=2
detected by Dov.
The event_1 patch gives better results on systems
Dov Feldstern wrote:
Peter Kümmel wrote:
I'm running out of ideas...
Is this patch better (the flush call is new)?
Or with processEvents instead of flush?
event_2.patch works for me --- but then again event_1 did, too. Again,
this is on linux. Scrolling appears to be fine (both with arrow
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:13:16PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Dov Feldstern wrote:
Peter Kümmel wrote:
I'm running out of ideas...
Is this patch better (the flush call is new)?
Or with processEvents instead of flush?
event_2.patch works for me --- but then again event_1 did, too.
Dov Feldstern wrote:
Peter Kümmel wrote:
I'm running out of ideas...
Is this patch better (the flush call is new)?
Or with processEvents instead of flush?
event_2.patch works for me --- but then again event_1 did, too. Again,
this is on linux. Scrolling appears to be fine (both with arrow
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:13:16PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Dov Feldstern wrote:
> >Peter Kümmel wrote:
> >>
> >>I'm running out of ideas...
> >>Is this patch better (the flush call is new)?
> >>Or with processEvents instead of flush?
> >>
> >
> >event_2.patch works for me --- but then again
Dov Feldstern wrote:
Peter Kümmel wrote:
I'm running out of ideas...
Is this patch better (the flush call is new)?
Or with processEvents instead of flush?
event_2.patch works for me --- but then again event_1 did, too. Again,
this is on linux. Scrolling appears to be fine (both with
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 7:26:37 pm Peter Kümmel wrote:
The current svn code is not correct, even when this patch isn't perfect,
should I apply it?
Could you get more people to test it, please?
This is a sensitive area, just like walking on thin glass. :-)
If by Friday you don't have any
José Matos wrote:
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 7:26:37 pm Peter Kümmel wrote:
The current svn code is not correct, even when this patch isn't perfect,
should I apply it?
Could you get more people to test it, please?
This is a sensitive area, just like walking on thin glass. :-)
If by
Dov Feldstern wrote:
> Peter Kümmel wrote:
>>
>> I'm running out of ideas...
>> Is this patch better (the flush call is new)?
>> Or with processEvents instead of flush?
>>
>
> event_2.patch works for me --- but then again event_1 did, too. Again,
> this is on linux. Scrolling appears to be fine
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 7:26:37 pm Peter Kümmel wrote:
> The current svn code is not correct, even when this patch isn't perfect,
> should I apply it?
Could you get more people to test it, please?
This is a sensitive area, just like walking on thin glass. :-)
If by Friday you don't have
José Matos wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 May 2007 7:26:37 pm Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> The current svn code is not correct, even when this patch isn't perfect,
>> should I apply it?
>
> Could you get more people to test it, please?
>
> This is a sensitive area, just like walking on thin glass. :-)
>
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 07:08:59PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
...
OK, I've found a better solution ;)
I had to test if it was worth to upgrade to 1GB ram.
I can understand that. I was thinking of collecting the scroll events
and cancelling
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Is this your only comment?
Yes. Sorry, don't have the time to do much more. I thought I'd share my
opinion ;-)
Sorry, too - for my harsh reply.
Anyway I don't think there is a simpler solution, at least I will
not look for it,
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
BTW what do you mean by 'input methods? Here I have a choice of virtual
keyboard and handwriting recognition. How is that relevant?
Input methods are used in the CJK world to help the writing. The
technique is very similar to autocompletion
Helge Hafting wrote:
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Is this your only comment?
Yes. Sorry, don't have the time to do much more. I thought I'd share my
opinion ;-)
Sorry, too - for my harsh reply.
Anyway I don't think there is a simpler solution, at least
Helge Hafting wrote:
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Is this your only comment?
Yes. Sorry, don't have the time to do much more. I thought I'd share my
opinion ;-)
Sorry, too - for my harsh reply.
Anyway I don't think there is a simpler solution, at least
Peter Kümmel wrote:
I'm running out of ideas...
Is this patch better (the flush call is new)?
Or with processEvents instead of flush?
event_2.patch works for me --- but then again event_1 did, too. Again,
this is on linux. Scrolling appears to be fine (both with arrow keys and
page-up and
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 07:08:59PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
...
OK, I've found a better solution ;)
I had to test if it was worth to upgrade to 1GB ram.
I can understand that. I was thinking of collecting the scroll events
and cancelling
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Is this your only comment?
Yes. Sorry, don't have the time to do much more. I thought I'd share my
opinion ;-)
Sorry, too - for my harsh reply.
Anyway I don't think there is a simpler solution, at least I will
not look for it,
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
BTW what do you mean by 'input methods? Here I have a choice of virtual
keyboard and handwriting recognition. How is that relevant?
Input methods are used in the CJK world to help the writing. The
technique is very similar to autocompletion
Helge Hafting wrote:
> Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>>
Is this your only comment?
>>> Yes. Sorry, don't have the time to do much more. I thought I'd share my
>>> opinion ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, too - for my harsh reply.
>>
>>
Anyway I don't think
Helge Hafting wrote:
> Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>>
Is this your only comment?
>>> Yes. Sorry, don't have the time to do much more. I thought I'd share my
>>> opinion ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, too - for my harsh reply.
>>
>>
Anyway I don't think
Peter Kümmel wrote:
I'm running out of ideas...
Is this patch better (the flush call is new)?
Or with processEvents instead of flush?
event_2.patch works for me --- but then again event_1 did, too. Again,
this is on linux. Scrolling appears to be fine (both with arrow keys and
page-up and
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Next try. To see how it works change the event_delay_ms
variable in the constructor to 3000 and use -dbg 12.
This looks way too complicated Peter. There must be a simpler solution.
Abdel.
Is this your only comment?
Yes.
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Is this your only comment?
Yes. Sorry, don't have the time to do much more. I thought I'd share my
opinion ;-)
Sorry, too - for my harsh reply.
Anyway I don't think there is a simpler solution, at least I will
not look for it, this bug has cost me already too
Dov Feldstern wrote:
Peter Kümmel wrote:
On slow/loaded systems the last patch floods the
event queue with timer events instead of key/scroll events.
I hope attached patch will now really fix the problem.
Peter
This works for me (timer_scroll_4.patch) --- at least for what I'm
testing,
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Dov Feldstern wrote:
Peter Kümmel wrote:
On slow/loaded systems the last patch floods the
event queue with timer events instead of key/scroll events.
I hope attached patch will now really fix the problem.
Peter
This works for me (timer_scroll_4.patch) --- at least for
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 07:08:59PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
...
OK, I've found a better solution ;)
I had to test if it was worth to upgrade to 1GB ram.
I can understand that. I was thinking of collecting the scroll events
and cancelling them if a scroll
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Next try. To see how it works change the event_delay_ms
variable in the constructor to 3000 and use -dbg 12.
This looks way too complicated Peter. There must be a simpler solution.
Abdel.
Is this your only comment?
Yes.
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>> Is this your only comment?
>
> Yes. Sorry, don't have the time to do much more. I thought I'd share my
> opinion ;-)
Sorry, too - for my harsh reply.
>
>>
>> Anyway I don't think there is a simpler solution, at least I will
>> not look for it, this bug has cost me
Dov Feldstern wrote:
> Peter Kümmel wrote:
>>
>> On slow/loaded systems the last patch floods the
>> event queue with timer events instead of key/scroll events.
>> I hope attached patch will now really fix the problem.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
> This works for me (timer_scroll_4.patch) --- at least for
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Dov Feldstern wrote:
Peter Kümmel wrote:
On slow/loaded systems the last patch floods the
event queue with timer events instead of key/scroll events.
I hope attached patch will now really fix the problem.
Peter
This works for me (timer_scroll_4.patch) --- at least for
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 07:08:59PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
...
> OK, I've found a better solution ;)
> I had to test if it was worth to upgrade to 1GB ram.
>
> >
> > I can understand that. I was thinking of collecting the scroll events
> > and cancelling them if
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 08:12:33AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
I also realized this while working on this bug. So I dropped my first
patches and now use isAutoRepeated in the committed patch, by this
a keystroke produced by a user will never get lost.
All typed keystrokes are in the event queue
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 08:43:12AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
===
--- src/frontends/qt4/GuiWorkArea.cpp (revision 18380)
+++ src/frontends/qt4/GuiWorkArea.cpp (working copy)
@@ -161,7 +161,7 @@
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 08:12:33AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
I also realized this while working on this bug. So I dropped my first
patches and now use isAutoRepeated in the committed patch, by this
a keystroke produced by a user will never get lost.
All typed keystrokes
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 08:43:12AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
===
--- src/frontends/qt4/GuiWorkArea.cpp (revision 18380)
+++ src/frontends/qt4/GuiWorkArea.cpp (working copy)
@@
Next try. To see how it works change the event_delay_ms
variable in the constructor to 3000 and use -dbg 12.
Please test if scrolling works when
- moving the slider with the mouse
- clicking in the scroll bar
- pressing page up/down keys
- arrow keys
- arrow buttons on the scroll bar
- using
+#include set
not needed will remove it
class QWidget;
+ ///
+ QTimer delayed_scrollbar_sync;
+ ///
+ QTimer delayed_key_event;
+ struct key_info { QKeySymbol* sym; Qt::KeyboardModifiers mod; };
+ std::vectorkey_info delayed_keys;
};
Andre, any tips how
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Next try. To see how it works change the event_delay_ms
variable in the constructor to 3000 and use -dbg 12.
Please test if scrolling works when
- moving the slider with the mouse
- clicking in the scroll bar
- pressing page up/down keys
- arrow keys
- arrow
On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 10:53:39AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
+#include set
not needed will remove it
class QWidget;
+ ///
+ QTimer delayed_scrollbar_sync;
+ ///
+ QTimer delayed_key_event;
+ struct key_info { QKeySymbol* sym; Qt::KeyboardModifiers mod; };
+
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Next try. To see how it works change the event_delay_ms
variable in the constructor to 3000 and use -dbg 12.
This looks way too complicated Peter. There must be a simpler solution.
Abdel.
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Next try. To see how it works change the event_delay_ms
variable in the constructor to 3000 and use -dbg 12.
This looks way too complicated Peter. There must be a simpler solution.
Abdel.
Is this your only comment?
Anyway I don't think
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Next try. To see how it works change the event_delay_ms
variable in the constructor to 3000 and use -dbg 12.
This looks way too complicated Peter. There must be a simpler solution.
Abdel.
You could start with some like the attached patch
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Dov Feldstern wrote:
The truth is, I don't know that this is directly related to the machine
on which it's running. My machine is quite powerful --- it's a Pentium
IV 3.0 GHz; and I don't see any jump in the system load when I start
scrolling, either: not when I start and
Peter Kümmel wrote:
On slow/loaded systems the last patch floods the
event queue with timer events instead of key/scroll events.
I hope attached patch will now really fix the problem.
Peter
This works for me (timer_scroll_4.patch) --- at least for what I'm
testing, namely, cursor movement
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 08:12:33AM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> I also realized this while working on this bug. So I dropped my first
> patches and now use isAutoRepeated in the committed patch, by this
> a keystroke produced by a user will never get lost.
> All typed keystrokes are in the event
1 - 100 of 260 matches
Mail list logo
