RE: Screen bleeding

Hi

I have one warning, please don't put the Tn5250Win[] and following variables 
global since I will hardly be able to use your code otherwise.

I just compared session.c. I think that your version is probably better but I, 
as I written in the comments, took the tn5250j project as reference since this 
one did work correctly on the page I had to make work. I am not a 5250 user so 
I just fixed the reported error users gave me. :)

Why did you change the type of border_length to unsigned char? Does it have to 
wrap around 255? It does add a lot of burden to the code.

I agree with you it would be better to remove the FCW and FFW values and use 
variables with significant name. Why do you discard the continuous flags 
(first, middle, last) and just set your flag to 1? In fact we could use one 
variable instead of the 3 continued_XXX with an enum (or define).


Marc-Antoine Ruel

> -----Message d'origine-----
> DeÂ: linux5250-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux5250-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de James Rich
> EnvoyÃÂ: 6 fÃvrier, 2005 16:25
> 
> (...)
> I'm working slowly through it.  The first thing I notice is that you only
> have the ability to read one field control word (field->FCW).  This is a
> problem because every input field can have multiple field control words
> (i.e. cursor progression and continuous and wordwrap).  Unless I'm
> misreading something, you will only be able to retrieve one of these.
> Unpatched tn5250 has the same problem.  In my version, I retrieve all the
> FCWs and store them.  You and I are using largely the same techniques.
> The field structure in field.h needs to have entries for each field
> control word and both you and I have similar ways of storing that.  But I
> think the implementation I have of tn5250_session_start_of_field() in
> session.c is more accurate.  Take a look at it at:
> 
> http://www.chowhouse.com/~james/x5250/src/tn5250/src/session.c
> 
> IMO, the FCW entry in the field structure is largely pointless unless we
> make it a linked list since there could potentionally be any number of
> field control words.  So instead of using the FCW entry, I just created
> entries for each field control word that I support.  I notice you did the
> same.  I think we can safely get rid of field->FCW and just use an agreed
> upon set of entries for the various field control words we support.
> 
> James Rich
>