1996-06-16 18:16:05 +02:00
|
|
|
USER MODULE
|
|
|
|
===========
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USER implements windowing and messaging subsystems. It also
|
|
|
|
contains code for common controls and for other miscellaneous
|
|
|
|
stuff (rectangles, clipboard, WNet, etc). Wine USER code is
|
|
|
|
located in windows/, controls/, and misc/ directories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Windowing subsystem
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Windows are arranged into parent/child hierarchy with one
|
|
|
|
common ancestor for all windows (desktop window). Each window
|
|
|
|
structure contains a pointer to the immediate ancestor (parent
|
|
|
|
window if WS_CHILD style bit is set), a pointer to the sibling
|
|
|
|
(returned by GetWindow(..., GW_NEXT)), a pointer to the owner
|
|
|
|
window (set only for popup window if it was created with valid
|
|
|
|
hwndParent parameter), and a pointer to the first child
|
|
|
|
window (GetWindow(.., GW_CHILD)). All popup and non-child windows
|
|
|
|
are therefore placed in the first level of this hierarchy and their
|
|
|
|
ancestor link (wnd->parent) points to the desktop window.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Desktop window - root window
|
|
|
|
| \ '-.
|
|
|
|
| \ '-.
|
|
|
|
popup -> wnd1 -> wnd2 - top level windows
|
|
|
|
| \ '-. '-.
|
|
|
|
| \ '-. '-.
|
|
|
|
child1 child2 -> child3 child4 - child windows
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Horizontal arrows denote sibling relationship, vertical lines
|
|
|
|
- ancestor/child. To summarize, all windows with the same immediate
|
|
|
|
ancestor are sibling windows, all windows which do not have desktop
|
|
|
|
as their immediate ancestor are child windows. Popup windows behave
|
|
|
|
as topmost top-level windows unless they are owned. In this case the
|
|
|
|
only requirement is that they must precede their owners in the top-level
|
|
|
|
sibling list (they are not topmost). Child windows are confined to the
|
|
|
|
client area of their parent windows (client area is where window gets
|
|
|
|
to do its own drawing, non-client area consists of caption, menu, borders,
|
|
|
|
intrinsic scrollbars, and minimize/maximize/close buttons).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another fairly important concept is "z-order". It is derived from
|
|
|
|
the ancestor/child hierarchy and is used to determine "above/below"
|
|
|
|
relationship. For instance, in the example above, z-order is
|
|
|
|
child1->popup->child2->child3->wnd1->child4->wnd2->desktop. Current
|
|
|
|
active window ("foreground window" in Win32) is moved to the front
|
|
|
|
of z-order unless its top-level ancestor owns popup windows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All these issues are dealt with (or supposed to be) in
|
|
|
|
windows/winpos.c
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wine specifics: in default and managed mode each top-level window
|
|
|
|
gets its own X counterpart with desktop window being basically a
|
|
|
|
fake stub. In desktop mode, however, only desktop window has X
|
|
|
|
window associated with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Messaging subsystem
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each Windows task/thread has its own message queue - this is where
|
|
|
|
it gets messages from. Messages can be generated on the fly
|
|
|
|
(WM_PAINT, WM_NCPAINT, WM_TIMER), they can be created by the system
|
|
|
|
(hardware messages), they can be posted by other tasks/threads
|
|
|
|
(PostMessage), or they can be sent by other tasks/threads (SendMessage).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message priority:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First the system looks for sent messages, then for posted messages,
|
|
|
|
then for hardware messages, then it checks if the queue has the
|
|
|
|
"dirty window" bit set, and, finally, it checks for expired
|
|
|
|
timers. See windows/message.c.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From all these different types of messages, only posted messages go
|
|
|
|
directly into the private message queue. System messages (even in
|
|
|
|
Win95) are first collected in the system message queue and then
|
|
|
|
they either sit there until Get/PeekMessage gets to process them
|
|
|
|
or, as in Win95, if system queue is getting clobbered, a special
|
|
|
|
thread ("raw input thread") assigns them to the private
|
|
|
|
queues. Sent messages are queued separately and the sender sleeps
|
|
|
|
until it gets a reply. Special messages are generated on the fly
|
|
|
|
depending on the window/queue state. If the window update region is
|
|
|
|
not empty, the system sets the QS_PAINT bit in the owning queue and
|
|
|
|
eventually this window receives a WM_PAINT message (WM_NCPAINT too
|
|
|
|
if the update region intersects with the non-client area). A timer
|
|
|
|
event is raised when one of the queue timers expire. Depending on
|
|
|
|
the timer parameters DispatchMessage either calls the callback
|
|
|
|
function or the window procedure. If there are no messages pending
|
|
|
|
the task/thread sleeps until messages appear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several tricky moments (open for discussion) -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a) System message order has to be honored and messages should be
|
|
|
|
processed within correct task/thread context. Therefore when
|
|
|
|
Get/PeekMessage encounters unassigned system message and this
|
|
|
|
message appears not to be for the current task/thread it should
|
|
|
|
either skip it (or get rid of it by moving it into the private
|
|
|
|
message queue of the target task/thread - Win95, AFAIK) and
|
|
|
|
look further or roll back and then yield until this message
|
|
|
|
gets processed when system switches to the correct context
|
|
|
|
(Win16). In the first case we lose correct message ordering, in
|
|
|
|
the second case we have the infamous synchronous system message
|
|
|
|
queue. Here is a post to one of the OS/2 newsgroup I found to
|
|
|
|
be relevant:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" Here's the problem in a nutshell, and there is no good solution.
|
|
|
|
Every possible solution creates a different problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With a windowing system, events can go to many different windows.
|
|
|
|
Most are sent by applications or by the OS when things relating to
|
|
|
|
that window happen (like repainting, timers, etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mouse input events go to the window you click on (unless some window
|
|
|
|
captures the mouse).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So far, no problem. Whenever an event happens, you put a message on
|
|
|
|
the target window's message queue. Every process has a message
|
|
|
|
queue. If the process queue fills up, the messages back up onto the
|
|
|
|
system queue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the first cause of apps hanging the GUI. If an app doesn't
|
|
|
|
handle messages and they back up into the system queue, other apps
|
|
|
|
can't get any more messages. The reason is that the next message in
|
|
|
|
line can't go anywhere, and the system won't skip over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This can be fixed by making apps have bigger private message queues.
|
|
|
|
The SIQ fix does this. PMQSIZE does this for systems without the SIQ
|
|
|
|
fix. Applications can also request large queues on their own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another source of the problem, however, happens when you include
|
|
|
|
keyboard events. When you press a key, there's no easy way to know
|
|
|
|
what window the keystroke message should be delivered to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most windowing systems use a concept known as "focus". The window
|
|
|
|
with focus gets all incoming keyboard messages. Focus can be changed
|
|
|
|
from window to window by apps or by users clicking on winodws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is the second source of the problem. Suppose window A has focus.
|
|
|
|
You click on window B and start typing before the window gets focus.
|
|
|
|
Where should the keystrokes go? On the one hand, they should go to A
|
|
|
|
until the focus actually changes to B. On the other hand, you
|
|
|
|
probably want the keystrokes to go to B, since you clicked there
|
|
|
|
first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OS/2's solution is that when a focus-changing event happens (like
|
|
|
|
clicking on a window), OS/2 holds all messages in the system queue
|
|
|
|
until the focus change actually happens. This way, subsequent
|
|
|
|
keystrokes go to the window you clicked on, even if it takes a while
|
|
|
|
for that window to get focus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The downside is that if the window takes a real long time to get focus
|
|
|
|
(maybe it's not handling events, or maybe the window losing focus
|
|
|
|
isn't handling events), everything backs up in the system queue and
|
|
|
|
the system appears hung.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are a few solutions to this problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One is to make focus policy asynchronous. That is, focus changing has
|
|
|
|
absolutely nothing to do with the keyboard. If you click on a window
|
|
|
|
and start typing before the focus actually changes, the keystrokes go
|
|
|
|
to the first window until focus changes, then they go to the second.
|
|
|
|
This is what X-windows does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another is what NT does. When focus changes, keyboard events are held
|
|
|
|
in the system message queue, but other events are allowed through.
|
|
|
|
This is "asynchronous" because the messages in the system queue are
|
|
|
|
delivered to the application queues in a different order from that
|
|
|
|
with which they were posted. If a bad app won't handle the "lose
|
|
|
|
focus" message, it's of no consequence - the app receiving focus will
|
|
|
|
get its "gain focus" message, and the keystrokes will go to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The NT solution also takes care of the application queue filling up
|
|
|
|
problem. Since the system delivers messages asynchronously, messages
|
|
|
|
waiting in the system queue will just sit there and the rest of the
|
|
|
|
messages will be delivered to their apps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The OS/2 SIQ solution is this: When a focus-changing event happens,
|
|
|
|
in addition to blocking further messages from the application queues,
|
|
|
|
a timer is started. When the timer goes off, if the focus change has
|
|
|
|
not yet happened, the bad app has its focus taken away and all
|
|
|
|
messages targetted at that window are skipped. When the bad app
|
|
|
|
finally handles the focus change message, OS/2 will detect this and
|
|
|
|
stop skipping its messages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for the pros and cons:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The X-windows solution is probably the easiest. The problem is that
|
|
|
|
users generally don't like having to wait for the focus to change
|
|
|
|
before they start typing. On many occasions, you can type and the
|
|
|
|
characters end up in the wrong window because something (usually heavy
|
|
|
|
system load) is preventing the focus change from happening in a timely
|
|
|
|
manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The NT solution seems pretty nice, but making the system message queue
|
|
|
|
asynchronous can cause similar problems to the X-windows problem.
|
|
|
|
Since messages can be delivered out of order, programs must not assume
|
|
|
|
that two messages posted in a particular order will be delivered in
|
|
|
|
that same order. This can break legacy apps, but since Win32 always
|
|
|
|
had an asynchronous queue, it is fair to simply tell app designers
|
|
|
|
"don't do that". It's harder to tell app designers something like
|
|
|
|
that on OS/2 - they'll complain "you changed the rules and our apps
|
|
|
|
are breaking."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The OS/2 solution's problem is that nothing happens until you try to
|
|
|
|
change window focus, and then wait for the timeout. Until then, the
|
|
|
|
bad app is not detected and nothing is done." (by David Charlap)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b) Intertask/interthread SendMessage. The system has to inform the
|
1996-08-11 17:49:51 +02:00
|
|
|
target queue about the forthcoming message, then it has to carry
|
|
|
|
out the context switch and wait until the result is available.
|
|
|
|
Win16 stores necessary parameters in the queue structure and then
|
|
|
|
calls DirectedYield() function. However, in Win32 there could be
|
|
|
|
several messages pending sent by preemptively executing threads,
|
|
|
|
and in this case SendMessage has to build some sort of message
|
|
|
|
queue for sent messages. Another issue is what to do with messages
|
|
|
|
sent to the sender when it is blocked inside its own SendMessage.
|
|
|
|
|