Re: [LINUX5250] cursor progression patch

[James Rich <james@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, James Rich wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Scott Klement wrote:
>
> > > I've worked over my enhanced 5250 protocol patch and now tn5250 supports
> > > cursor progression!  The bad part is that 5250 windows are broken.  That's
> > > because with cursor progression, the 5250 defines a new window
> > > create/destroy method that I haven't completely implemented yet, so 5250
> > > windows are a bit... crashy.
> >
> > Am I correct in assuming that it's only "crashy" if you specify the
> > +enhanced option to tn5250?

I've fixed the crashes now.  The problem was that I hadn't added the
appropriate functions to the terminal objects.  I've added them in and
created a new patch.  This new patch also includes some fixes to a few
other things in session.c.  The patch is at the same place:

http://www.chowhouse.com/~james/x5250/enhanced.patch

With this patch cursor progression works correctly.  5250 "windows" create
problems (though not crashes anymore).  The window border attributes get
placed all over the screen.

I haven't been able to figure out yet what is supposed to happen when we
get a CREATE WINDOW Structured Field order.  It looks like the as/400 uses
ErasetoAddress to "cut a hole" in the screen buffer at the location of the
window.  If there is more than one window on the screen then I don't see
how the as/400 indicates which window we're dealing with, especially if
one of those windows is destroyed.  There doesn't seem to be any way for
the 5250 protocol to indicate to delete a given window created with the
CREATE WINDOW Structured Field order.

Anyway, try out the patch and you will see what I mean.  No more crashes,
but ugly windows :(

James Rich

Vs lbh cynl n Zvpebfsg PQ  onpxjneqf, lbh pna urne fngnavp zrffntrf. Ohg
rira jbefr, vs lbh cynl vg sbejneq, vg vafgnyyf gurve fbsgjner!
        -- Fcbgvphf ba /.