JDK-4493228 : JDK1.4 & JDK1.3 conflict their window's info to X-WindowManager
  • Type: Bug
  • Component: client-libs
  • Sub-Component: java.awt
  • Affected Version: 1.4.0
  • Priority: P3
  • Status: Closed
  • Resolution: Duplicate
  • OS: linux
  • CPU: x86
  • Submitted: 2001-08-17
  • Updated: 2001-08-19
  • Resolved: 2001-08-19
Related Reports
Duplicate :  
Relates :  
Description
It took me a time to became sure about this problem.
Now I could say thet jdk1.4 provides different information(/or simply somehow confuse window manager) about application windows to WindowManager(Gnome 1.4-sawfish) then jdk1.3, and then totaly confused this WindowManager. Then Gnome can't handle java windows...(placement, size,menus, etc.). The only way to get java application work is to restart Gnome.

I discovered one ugly thing: When You run GUI application like NetBeans on jdk1.3.x and then run it (or run another aplication eg.Furi) using 1.4, it is OK. But when you want to start again application eg.NEtBeans on jdk1.3.x then its windows ar totaly mixed up:
No one has its right position, size. From Main Menu you can't reach all menu items,etc.
You must kill it(otherwise your setting will be stored badly) and restart your window manager.

I made output from "xwininfo"  tool of NetBEans running on jdk1.3, then jdk1.4
the same for Furi.
But I must say I didn't run them all at once, so that's probably my misstake.
If necesseary I'll do its output on bouth running application on jdk1.4 and jdk1.3 in the same time.
Now I don't see any significant differences.


Maybe I should mention:
I'm using linux 2.4.5 SMP based on rh70
Gnome1.4-sawfish
jdk1.4 b75, Pilsen FCS (aka RC4)(FFJ30-ce) in SDI mode



###@###.### 2001-08-20
In previous comment I made typo!
now I correct it and pasting here the right version of sentence too:
From Main Menu you can't reach all menu items,etc.
###@###.### 2001-08-20

Comments
EVALUATION Sounds like the same issue as 4492910. ###@###.### 2001-08-18 ###@###.### 2001-09-18 Yea, I agree, also there is the similar one #4487993 I'm suggesting to close this one and #4492910 as duplicates of #4487993 ###@###.### 2001-09-18
18-09-2001