The blame reveals commit 820cfe73, which introduced printing of
notifications similar to notification_print(). The fflush call is still
left over since porting the printfs into their dedicated method.
As notification_print() is called after this fflush() call, it's not
necessary anymore.
Focus events do not mark any change in state of the notifications so
calling wake_up as a response is a wake of CPU cycles. Instead treat
them like PropertyNotify and only redraw if we need to change monitors.
Before this commit when using Dunst with multiple displays and
follow mode mouse/keyboard on a new notification (when no other
notifications are shown) a black window flickers up at the screen where
the last notification was shown.
By calling draw() before x_window_show the new window position will be
calculated and the window will be moved there before the window is shown
and thus remove the flickering.
When the display queue had is full and a new notification would come
in, new notification wouldn't get shown until a currently displayed
notification would timeout.
Even if the notification would have been shown on top of the displayed
queue. So e.g. if the displayed queue would have been filled with
"normal" urgency notifications, an incoming "urgent" notification would
have been delayed.
To let those more important notifications through, the tail of displayed
and head of waiting are swapped on every update if necessary.
For notifications without any timeout, ttl can't be positive.
So when, show_age_threshold is active, dunst won't wake up, if there
are only notifications displayed without any timeout.
While the rule's field will get checked for a NULL value, the
notification's field won't get, as it's assumed to be non-NULL.
This is problematic, as there can be some corner cases, where the
notification's field is actually NULL.
Fixes#536
* Move mouse_left/middle/right_click to global section
* Match the enum value style
* Ignore unknow mouse event
* Split copy-paste code into a function
* Fix typo
All XEvents only got logged with their IDs. It makes more sense to write
out the XEvent's name. Also, writing that we received an XEvent and then
logging again, that we ignored it, makes no sense.
