I am trying to insert a custom widget into the Internet Explorer 8 url bar, next to the stop and reload buttons. This is just a personal productivity enhancer for myself.
The “window model” for this part of the IE frame is an “address bar root” window that owns the windows which comprise the IE8 url bar: an edit box, a combo control, and the stop and reload buttons.
From another process, I create a new WS_CHILD window (with a custom class name) that is parented by IE’s address bar root window, thus making it a sibling of the edit box and stop/reload. I call SetWindowPos with an hwndInsertAfter of HWND_TOP to make sure it appears “above” (i.e. “in”) the urlbar. This works nicely, and I see my window painted initially inside the IE urlbar.
However, when I activate the IE window, the urlbar edit control jumps back in front of my window. I know this is happening because I still see my window painted behind the urlbar, and because when I print ->GetTopWindow() to the debug console on a timer, it becomes the HWND of the urlbar edit control.
If I update my message loop to call SetWindowPos with HWND_TOP on WM_PAINT, things are better — now when I activate the IE window and move it around, my control properly stays planted above the edit control in the urlbar. However, as soon as I switch between IE tabs, which updates the text of IE’s urlbar Edit control, my control shift backs behind the Edit control. (Note: This also happens when I maximize or restore the window.)
So my questions are:
1) Is it likely that IE is intentionally putting its urlbar edit control back on top of the z-order every time you click on a tab in IE, or is there a gap in my understanding of how Windows painting and z-ordering works? My understanding is that once you specify z-ordering of child windows (which are not manipulable by the end-user), that ordering should remain until programmatically changed. So even though IE is repainting its Edit control upon tab selection whereas I am not repainting or otherwise acting upon my window, my window should stil remain firmly on top.
2) Given that the z-order of my window is apparently changing, shouldn’t it receive a WM_WINDOWPOSCHANGING/WM_WINDOWPOSCHANGED? If it did, I could at least respond to that event and keep myself on top of the Edit control. But even though I can see my window painting behind the urlbar Edit control when I click on a tab, and even though my debug window output confirms that the address bar root’s GetTopWindow() becomes the HWND of the Edit control when I click on a tab, and even though I see WM_WINDOWPOSCHANGING/WM_WINDOWPOSCHANGED being sent to the Edit control with an hwndInsertAfter of HWND_TOP when I click on a tab, my own window receives no messages whatsoever that would allow me to keep the z-order constant. This seems wrong to me, and addressing it would force me to run in IE’s process and hook all messages sent to its Edit control just to have an event to respond to 🙁
Thank you for your help!
It’s quite likely that IE is juggling the Z-order of the controls when you change tabs. In IE9, the URL bar and the tabs have a common parent. When you select a new tab, it activates the URL bar (and activation usually brings the window to the top of its local Z order).
No. You get WM_WINDOWPOSCHANGED when a SetWindowPos function acts on your window. If some of the siblings have their z-orders changed, you don’t get a message. Nobody called SetWindowPos on your window. You can see this by writing a test program that juggles the z-order of some child windows.
This makes sense because there might be an arbitrary number of sibling windows, and it could be an unbounded amount of overhead to notify all of them. It also would be nearly impossible to come up with a consistent set of rules for delivering these messages to all the siblings given that some of the siblings could react by further shuffling the z-order. Do the siblings that haven’t yet received the first notification now have two pending notifications? Do they get posted or dispatched immediately? What if the queue grows and grows until it overflows?
This is different from WM_KILLFOCUS/WM_SETFOCUS notifications in that it affects, at most, two windows. That puts a reasonable bound on the number of notifications. Even if there’s a runaway infinite loop because the losing control tries to steal the focus back, the queue won’t overflow because there’s only one SetFocus call for each WM_KILLFOCUS delivered.
Also, it’s reasonable that windows might need to react to a loss of focus. It’s much less likely that window C needs to know that B is now on top of A instead of the other way around, so why design the system to send a jillion unnecessary messages?
Hacking the UI of apps you don’t control and that don’t have well-defined APIs for doing the types of things you want to do is anywhere from hard to impossible, and it’s always fragile. Groups that put out toolbars and browser customizations employee more people than you might expect, and they spend much of their day probing with Spy++ and experimenting. It is by nature hacking.