The XEmbed protocol defines a special property that defines if the embedded
window wants to be visible or not. Up to now, awesome always ignored this entry
and instead behaved as if the bit was set. This commit makes it properly respect
the bit.
Testing done: None. No idea how. Apparently nothing really uses this bit,
because we didn't get bug reports about it yet.
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
The Xembed specification states that the protocol ends by reparenting the
embedded window elsewhere while unmapping the window can be done without ending
the protocol.
This commit makes us follow this part of the spec.
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
The behavior was changed during the rewrite. This was a mistake
as it was assumed (wrongly) that nobody used this function with
wiboxes other than "wibars" (awful.wibox).
Fixes#917
Since the screen removal patchset, the tags properties were
cleaned too early. This caused code connecting to "property::activated"
to be called with the tag already partially deleted. For code depending
on those properties, such as radical.impl.taglist, this caused errors.
Apparently, there is such thing as not leaking enough...
Also try to clear the widgets from mywibox. This seem to help.
Time will tell.
Fixes#914, unfixes #808
Similar systems already exist un luaobject, wibox and the declarative
widget system. This close the gap and also bring the property based
syntax to wibox and other gears.object users.
While this need to be enabled explicitly for legacy reasons, it
doesn't break the API.
Once widespread, this implementation will replace the one found
in wibox.widget.base_widget.
This defines some assertions in Lua that should catch API misuses. It might be
that Lua is a bit slower due to this, but so what?
Fixes: https://github.com/awesomeWM/awesome/issues/740
Signed-off-by: Uli Schlachter <psychon@znc.in>
Why:
* Two different (but related) concepts had the same name
* Users were confused for years on IRC
* The wibar name was already in use in some doc to avoid confusion
This was only partially implemented. The margins were substracted from
the area too early in the pipeline. Now, they are added when getting
the size and substracted when setting it. This way, the margins will
"survive" when a placement function set an absolute value in one of
the field. Previously, this caused one (or more) of the margins to
be lost.
Uli Schlachter
Emmanuel Lepage Vallée
actionless
Daniel Hahler
Uli Schlachter