On 08/12/14 08:07 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 02:39:21PM -0800, Bill Spitzak wrote:
>> On 12/02/2014 05:49 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
>>
>>> +
>>> +
>>> +The lock_pointer request lets the client disable absolute pointer
>>> +movements, locking the pointer
On 12/08/2014 06:07 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 02:39:21PM -0800, Bill Spitzak wrote:
- Does this need some id of the triggering event? Mostly to determine if the
surface had the pointer focus at the time the request was made.
It does not, and the lock is postponed until t
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 02:39:21PM -0800, Bill Spitzak wrote:
> On 12/02/2014 05:49 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
>
> >+
> >+
> >+The lock_pointer request lets the client disable absolute pointer
> >+movements, locking the pointer to a position.
> >+
> >+There may not be
On 12/02/2014 05:49 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
+
+
+The lock_pointer request lets the client disable absolute pointer
+movements, locking the pointer to a position.
+
+There may not be another lock of any kind active when requesting a
lock,
+and if there is
A couple of doc comments below, but the protocol otherwise looks pretty
good. Again, I've only glanced at the implementation.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 5:49 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> This patch introduces a new protocol for locking and confining a
> pointer. It consists of a new global object with
This patch introduces a new protocol for locking and confining a
pointer. It consists of a new global object with two requests; one for
locking the surface to a position, one for confining the pointer to a
given region.
See pointer-lock.xml for details of the protocol.
In this patch, only the loc
