Mike Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK on the second point. For the first how should it be handled? The
> protocol Windows uses doesn't seem to let you return a success/failure
> value. Do we just drop the tray icon?
Yeah, something like that. It's OK to not add an icon if we are out of
memo
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 15:35 +0100, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> It would be nice to do the XEMBED stuff as a separate patch. Also I
> was hoping you would get rid of WS_EX_TRAYWINDOW instead of adding
> even more uses of it...
XEMBED in a separate patch is doable I guess but it wouldn't be used
wit
Mike Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There was a crash in the previous patch, here is a fixed version.
>
> - Add a new wineshell process, and put system tray handling in there
> - Rewrite the shell32 systray handling to be out of process
> - Support the freedesktop.org XEMBED protocol
It wou
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 21:41:16 +, Mike Hearn wrote:
> That's very strange. That was the first time I have tried sending a
> patch via the builtin emacs sendmail facility, it would be annoying if
> that mangles it somehow. I checked the web archive and my own inbox, and
> the patch *looked* fine.
> Mike,
> I tried saving the patch in various ways, maybe its me, but it would
> appear its corrupted, can u resend as attachment, thanks.
That's very strange. That was the first time I have tried sending a
patch via the builtin emacs sendmail facility, it would be annoying if
that mangles it som
Mike,
I tried saving the patch in various ways, maybe its me, but it would
appear its corrupted, can u resend as attachment, thanks.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wine-20041201]# patch -p0 -i
/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/systray-20041206.patch
patching file dlls/x11drv/event.c
patching file dlls/x11drv/window.c
