Hi,
On 23 September 2015 at 17:33, Derek Foreman wrote:
> On 25/02/15 08:03 AM, David FORT wrote:
>> As stated in the very good blog post[1] of Pekka Paalanen, server-side we
>> can have
>> sometime troubles with object that the server has deleted but that the client
>> is still requesting. This
This one's been waiting for a long time...
I'm currently pretending to make an effort to clean up patchwork a bit. ;)
On 25/02/15 08:03 AM, David FORT wrote:
> As stated in the very good blog post[1] of Pekka Paalanen, server-side we can
> have
> sometime troubles with object that the server has
I wonder if the same effect could be achieved by few smaller changes. What
I'm thinking about is something like:
wl_resource_set_intact()
So far I've got three ways how to achieve that:
1) change scanner so that it saves opcode of destructor events in
wl_interface, so when we invoke a closure, we
As stated in the very good blog post[1] of Pekka Paalanen, server-side we can
have
sometime troubles with object that the server has deleted but that the client
is still requesting. This patch complements the scanner to create some code
that will return inert objects, ie objects that will do nothi
