I'm building an application with a main window and a sub-window that I'd like to present as a modal session. So I'm using this code within the window controller:
self.session = [[NSApplication sharedApplication] beginModalSessionForWindow: self.window];
[[NSApplication sharedApplication] runModalSession: self.session];
However, regardless of where I put this code - in windowDidLoad, in a post-windowDidLoad call from the main window, or even in the window controller's init function - what I get is a modeless sub-window. The sub-window appears over the main window, but the main window continues to respond to input events.
What am I doing wrong?
nvm - found my answer by reading some examples. (Once again, hours of research before posting on Stack failed to yield answers, and I stumble across insight right after posting.)
For posterity, here's the answer: beginModalSessionForWindow doesn't work like runModalForWindow.
With runModal, you can execute that code anywhere, and Cocoa will immediately halt all processing except for the modal window. (Unfortunately, that includes timers tied to non-UI events for background processing.) The code that executes runModal is blocked, and resumes only after the modal window is closed. The system enforces the modality of the window.
beginModalSessionForWindow works very differently. Wherever you execute it, the code starts up the modal window and then keeps executing. In the general use case (as demonstrated in Apple's examples), if you call beginModal before a loop and then condition the loop on polling the status of the session, the loop can perform whatever other processing you want; and during the loop, it's also blocking normal UI events - just like any IBAction would when executing a long-running loop.
The point is that beginModalSession actually doesn't enforce any modality of the window. Rather, your code enforces the modality of the window by executing a long-running loop. If you don't use a loop, but instead just let the "modal" session run and resume the ordinary event loop... then your other windows get all event processing, including UI events. The "modal" window becomes modeless.
I will argue that "beginModalSessionForWindow" should really be called beginModelessSessionForWindow, because that's what it does: it creates a modeless window and returns.
Related
My understanding is any modal dialog automatically has its own message-pump, running on a thread dedicated to that dialog - is that right?
If so, how does a modal dialog's existence affect the main application's message loop? Do both run in parallel, does one take priority?
I have a situation where a modal dialog seems to get stuck for several seconds waiting for something, and wondered if it's possible the dialog is forced to wait until the main application thread is not busy?
As IInspectable explained, the modal dialog will run in the same thread as the caller. Therefore if you run the dialog from the main UI thread that has your main message loop, you'll end up with a nested message loop. The stack would look something like:
WinMain
YourMainMessageLoop
DispatchMessage
SomeMessageHandler
DoModal
and DoModal spins in its own GetMessage/TranslateMessage/DispatchMessage loop. The main message loop (YourMainMessageLoop in the sample stack above) is "active" in the sense that it's still running, but it's blocked by the dialog's message loop. Execution won't return to YourMainMessageLoop until DoModal exits.
Note that even if you're within the modal dialog's message loop, your other windows will still handle messages because GetMessage and DispatchMessage will still retrieve and direct messages to those windows and invoke their WndProcs.
To prevent users from clicking in my main_window when a MessageBox appears I have used:
EnableWindow(main_window,FALSE);
I got a sample MessageBox:
EnableWindow(main_window,FALSE);
MessageBox(NULL,"some text here","About me",MB_ICONASTERISK);
EnableWindow(main_window,TRUE);
The problem is that when I press "OK" on my MessageBox it closes and my main_window is send to back of all other system windows. Why this is happening?
I tried to put:
SetFocus(main_window);
SetActiveWindow(main_window);
after and before : EnableWindow(main_window,TRUE) the result was strange: it worked 50/50. Guess I do it the way it shouldn't be.
Btw.
Is there a better solution to BLOCK mouse click's on specific window than:
EnableWindow(main_window,FALSE);
Displaying modal UI requires that the modal child is enabled and the owner is disabled. When the modal child is finished the procedure has to be reversed. The code you posted looks like a straight forward way to implement this.
Except, it isn't.
The problem is in between the calls to MessageBox and EnableWindow, code that you did not write. MessageBox returns after the modal child (the message box) has been destroyed. Since this is the window with foreground activiation the window manager then tries to find a new window to activate. There is no owning window, so it starts searching from the top of the Z-order. The first window it finds is yours, but it is still disabled. So the window manager skips it and looks for another window, one that is not disabled. By the time the call to EnableWindow is executed it is too late - the window manager has already concluded that another window should be activated.
The correct order would be to enable the owner prior to destroying the modal UI.
This, however, is only necessary if you have a reason to implement modality yourself. The system provides a standard implementation for modal UI. To make use of it pass a handle to the owning window to calls like MessageBox or CreateDialog (*), and the window manager will do all the heavy lifting for you.
(*): The formal parameter to CreateDialog is unfortunately misnamed as hWndParent. Parent-child and owner-owned relationships are very different (see About Windows).
For a long time I have been wondering how modal dialog is implemented.
Let me take Qt as an example. (Nearly all GUI toolkit has this mechanism)
In the main event loop, a slot is called, and in this slot a modal dialog is opened. Before the dialog is closed, the slot doesn't return control to the main event loop. So I thought that the main event loop is blocked and become unresponsive. Apparently this is not true, since when you open a modal dialog, the background main window is still working, like repainting its UI or keep displaying a curve or some graph. It just becomes not to accept any user input.
I did an experiment. I didn't open a modal dialog in the slot, but start a new thread there, and wait for the thread to finish in that slot. This definitely blocked the main event loop.
How modal dialog is implemented after all? How does it keep main event loop unblocked but at the same time blocked the calling slot?
There is only ever a need for a single event loop, and it does not block when a modal dialog appears. Though, I suppose, different toolkits may handle this differently. You would need to consult the documentation to know for sure. Conceptually, however, it all works in the same way.
Every event has a source where the event occured. When a modal dialog appears, the event loop either ignores or redirects all events that originate outside of the dialog. There's really no magic to it. Generally speaking, it's like an if statement in the event loop code that says "if (modal_is_shown() and !event_is_in_modal_window()) {ignore_and_wait_for_next_event()}". Of course, the logic is a bit more complicated, but that's the gist of it.
If you're looking for examples here's another one:
In Tk, there is only ever one event loop. Modal behavior (doesn't have to be dialog, can also be tooltips, textbox etc) is simply implemented by making the main window ignore mouse and keyboard events. All other events like redraws etc. can still be serviced because the event loop is still running.
Tk implements this via the [grab] function. Calling grab on a UI object makes it the only object able to respond to keyboard and mouse events. Essentially blocking all other objects. This doesn't mess with the event loop. It merely temporarily disables event handlers until the grab is released.
It should be noted that Unix-like operating systems running X also has grab built in to the windowing system. So it's not necessarily implemented merely by UI toolkit libraries but is sometimes also a built in feature of the OS. Again, this is implemented by simple blocking/disabling of events instead of instantiating separate event loops. I believe this also used to be the case for the older MacOS before OSX. Not sure about OSX or Windows though. Even though modality is often implemented by the OS itself, toolkits like Qt and Tk often implement their own mechanisms to standardize behaviors across different platforms.
So the conclusion is, it is not necessary to block the main event loop to implement modality. You just need to block the events and/or event handlers.
The answer by https://stackoverflow.com/users/893/greg-hewgill is correct.
However, reading the follow-up discussion between him and https://stackoverflow.com/users/188326/solotim , I feel that there is room for further clarification, by means of prose and some pseudo-code.
I'll handle the prose part with a fact-list:
The main message loop does not run until the modal activity is finished
However, events are still delivered while the modal activity is running
This is because there is a nested event loop within the modal activity.
So far I just repeated Greg's answer, please bear with me as it is for continuity's sake. Below is where I hope to contribute additional, useful info.
The nested event loop is part of the GUI toolkit, and as such, it knows the callback functions related to every window in existence
When the nested event loop raises an event (such as a repaint event directed to the main window), it invokes the callback function associated with that event. Note that "callback" here may refer to a method of a class representing a window, in object-oriented systems.
the callback function does what is needed (e.g., repaint), and returns right back to the nested message loop (the one within the modal activity)
Last, but not least, here's pseudo-code to hopefully illustrate further, using a fictitious "GuiToolkit":
void GuiToolkit::RunModal( ModalWindow *m )
{
// main event loop
while( !GuiToolkit::IsFinished() && m->IsOpen() )
{
GuiToolkit::ProcessEvent(); // this will call
// MainWindow::OnRepaint
// as needed, via the virtual
// method of the base class
// NonModalWindow::OnRepaint
}
}
class AboutDialog: public ModalWindow
{
}
class MainWindow: public NonModalWindow
{
virtual void OnRepaint()
{
...
}
virtual void OnAboutBox()
{
AboutDialog about;
GuiToolkit::RunModal(&about); // blocks here!!
}
}
main()
{
MainWindow window;
GuiToolkit::Register( &window ) // GuiToolkit knows how to
// invoke methods of window
// main event loop
while( !GuiToolkit::IsFinished() )
{
GuiToolkit::ProcessEvent(); // this will call
// MainWindow::OnAboutBox
// at some point
}
}
In general, a modal dialog box of this type is implemented by running its own message loop instead of your application's message loop. Messages directed to your main window (such as timer or paint messages) will still get delivered, even during the modal operation.
In some situations, you may have to be careful that you don't recursively do the same thing repeatedly. For example, if you trigger a modal dialog box on a timer message combined with some persistent flag, you'll want to make sure you don't keep bringing up the same dialog box repeatedly whenever the timer message fires.
We have a MFC Visual-C++ application that is not reacting to any user input.
(Note: Currently only known on one machine. The behavior does recur occasionally, but only after the App has been running for several days!)
The application is redrawn when we switch to it via Alt-Tab (or the Task Bar), but we cannot, for example, activate it's main window by clicking on the title bar.
We have already pulled 4 dumps with WinDbg and checked the active instructions. We always were in some redraw code or somesuch inside the main thread (the GUI thread). We definitely were/are not in a modal message loop and the main thread's stack always looked "OK". (Most/all worker threads were idling, waiting for some event, no suspicious code there either.)
When investigating the problem with Spy++, we see the behavior specified also in this separate question, namely that we seem to get paint and activation messages, but no user input is routed to the application. When I have the application window on the screen, and select it to show messages of the main window,
it will only show "generic" "referesh" messages and nothing else
If I drill deeper, and select all messages for the whole process,
this is what we see:
The app is apparently only processing messages on one hidden sub-window (00CB09F0), and what we see there is a constant stream of 200 WM_PAINT messages per second.
Normally this Sub Window isn't processing any messages at all (except refresh WM_PAINT etc. when Windows sends them). It is normally used as a drawing area and the drawing happens through a WM_TIMER message on it's parent (010A09B8) window. (This WM_TIMER message isn't shown on the hanging app either though.)
The performance profile as shown in process explorer looks like this (100% kernel time, more or less):
I'd say that you have a redraw loop in that window that receives the WM_PAINT flood.
That usually happens if you call Invalidate or similar from the processing of the WM_PAINT message, directly or indirectly.
Other posibility is that, since you say that you are using a timer to redraw the window, the actual drawing is taking more time that the time it self, so the messages pile up in the queue.
Yet another posibility is that you are invalidating the window from a different thread than the one making the painting.
Anyway, you should ensure that you are calling Invalidate*() properly (you showed no code), and never from the OnPaint event. And avoid calling UpdateWindow() as this function can mess things if called without a little care.
I've seen this problem when an exception is thrown from a dialog. MFC's DoModal function disables the main program window then reenables it when the dialog returns; exceptions bypass the reenabling part and the main window remains disabled forever.
Base question: TStatusBar flickers when calling Update procedure. Ways to painlessly fix this
The executed code is in the questions first posts first part ( you can see light grey separating line ) ...
But - problem is that while this code is executed, form does not automatically activate and focus on the top of all other applications.
I have read these articles:
http://www.installationexcellence.com/articles/VistaWithDelphi/Original/Index.html
http://delphi.about.com/od/formsdialogs/l/aa073101b.htm
but according to them it should be working no matter what. I tried all the TApplicationEvents and TForm events with Show; Visible: Repaint; Refresh; BringToFront; ... nothing works.
So - I think I have two options - multithreading or trapping WM_SYSCOMMAND message and in the SC_ACTIVE event simply repaint form. Could this scenario become successful?
None of your linked articles deal with the problem you are having. What you see is the behaviour of a program that does not process Windows messages, so consequently it will not redraw parts that become invalid, and it will not react to keyboard or mouse input (for example moving or resizing with the mouse, or app activation using the taskbar button).
In your code you call StatusBar1.Update, so at least the status bar text is redrawn, but apart from coming to the foreground your application is probably also ignoring move or resize requests.
You need to process Windows messages in a timely manner, so any execution path that takes more than say 200 or 300 milliseconds needs to make sure that messages are handled, otherwise the application will appear unresponsive or hung.
You have basically three options:
Keep the long running code, and insert calls to Application.ProcessMessages - this will allow Windows messages to be processed. Make sure that you keep the code from being entered again, for instance by disabling all the controls that are used to start the operation.
Rework your code in a way that it appears as a sequence of steps, each taking no more than a few 10 milliseconds. Put calls to the code in a timer event handler, or call it from the Application.OnIdle handler.
Call your code in a worker thread, and post messages to the main GUI thread to update your UI.
All these options have their own pros and cons, and for multithreading especially there is a lot of questions and answers already here on SO. It is the most difficult but best option overall when you are working on anything more than a toy program.