I've noticed that if you have multiple docks open in the same area so that it creates the tabs at the bottom, there is an odd behavior with activation events.
If you open/create a dock it is the top dock and the activated event fires.
If you open/create another then it is the top dock and the activated event fires.
If you switch back and forth between the two open docks each time you click one it becomes the top dock and the activated event fires.
If however you close the top dock and the one underneath "passively" becomes the top dock, the activated event does not fire. In order to "activate" it you have to click on another dock and then click on that one again.
It seems to me that if you close a dock and a dock below that one now has focus and is at the top, then it should activate.
I use the activated event to do several small bits of processing and for it to sometimes not fire when the user would think it should is cumbersome.
If this is a bug, can a fix be added to the next release?
If this is not a bug, can you enlighten me as to why this isn't the intended behavior and perhaps provide a work around that would handle this case?
Thanks,
Alex
If you open/create a dock it is the top dock and the activated event fires.
If you open/create another then it is the top dock and the activated event fires.
If you switch back and forth between the two open docks each time you click one it becomes the top dock and the activated event fires.
If however you close the top dock and the one underneath "passively" becomes the top dock, the activated event does not fire. In order to "activate" it you have to click on another dock and then click on that one again.
It seems to me that if you close a dock and a dock below that one now has focus and is at the top, then it should activate.
I use the activated event to do several small bits of processing and for it to sometimes not fire when the user would think it should is cumbersome.
If this is a bug, can a fix be added to the next release?
If this is not a bug, can you enlighten me as to why this isn't the intended behavior and perhaps provide a work around that would handle this case?
Thanks,
Alex