On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Bryce Harrington
wrote:
>
> > Besides preventing blanking of only the correct output, this could also
> > allow the compositor to show popup notifications when the compositor
> knows
> > they will not interfere with the surface.
>
> Not sure what you mean here -
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:42:04 -0600
Derek Foreman wrote:
> On 24/11/15 12:46 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> >
> > I'm trying to think of a use case where you have, say, a dual head
> > configuration, and are watching something on one monitor but providing
> > no input for an extended period of tim
On 24/11/15 12:46 PM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:51:07AM -0800, Bill Spitzak wrote:
>> I now agree that tying the inhibit to a surface is exactly the right thing
>> to do.
>>
>> Besides preventing blanking of only the correct output, this could also
>> allow the compositor
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:51:07AM -0800, Bill Spitzak wrote:
> I now agree that tying the inhibit to a surface is exactly the right thing
> to do.
>
> Besides preventing blanking of only the correct output, this could also
> allow the compositor to show popup notifications when the compositor kno
I now agree that tying the inhibit to a surface is exactly the right thing
to do.
Besides preventing blanking of only the correct output, this could also
allow the compositor to show popup notifications when the compositor knows
they will not interfere with the surface.
I also think there is no n
On 20 November 2015 at 14:43, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:10:47 +0100
> Michal Suchanek wrote:
>
>> On 20 November 2015 at 12:48, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:18:29 +0100
>> > Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 20 November 2015 at 11:39, Pekka Paalanen
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:10:47 +0100
Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 20 November 2015 at 12:48, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:18:29 +0100
> > Michal Suchanek wrote:
> >
> >> On 20 November 2015 at 11:39, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 22:46:06 +0100
> >> > Michal
On 20 November 2015 at 12:48, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:18:29 +0100
> Michal Suchanek wrote:
>
>> On 20 November 2015 at 11:39, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>> > On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 22:46:06 +0100
>> > Michal Suchanek wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 19 November 2015 at 20:12, Daniel Stone w
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:18:29 +0100
Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 20 November 2015 at 11:39, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 22:46:06 +0100
> > Michal Suchanek wrote:
> >
> >> On 19 November 2015 at 20:12, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > On 19 November 2015 at 19:05, Bi
On 20 November 2015 at 11:39, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 22:46:06 +0100
> Michal Suchanek wrote:
>
>> On 19 November 2015 at 20:12, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On 19 November 2015 at 19:05, Bill Spitzak wrote:
>> >> I feel like there is no need to tie it to a surface
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 13:02:24 -0800
Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:05:58AM -0800, Bill Spitzak wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Christopher Michael <
> > cpmich...@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> >
> > So, after issuing the inhibit request for a surface, the screensaver
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 13:06:09 -0800
Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 07:12:31PM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Just make the inhibit request return a new object, which upon destroy,
> > removes the inhibition. That way you don't even have duplicate
> > codepaths for client exiting
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 22:46:06 +0100
Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 19 November 2015 at 20:12, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 19 November 2015 at 19:05, Bill Spitzak wrote:
> >> I feel like there is no need to tie it to a surface. In Wayland the client
> >> is always notified of any changes
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 12:06:43 -0800
Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 05:38:34AM -0500, Christopher Michael wrote:
> > On 11/19/2015 05:28 AM, Christopher Michael wrote:
> > >On 11/19/2015 05:15 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> > >>Not so sure about the scope though. If its not about surf
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 18:15:39 +0800
Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 02:04:36AM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 04:20:11AM -0500, Christopher Michael wrote:
> > > Just some random thoughts inlined below...
> > >
> > > On 11/19/2015 03:05 AM, Bryce Harrington
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 05:09:09 -0500
Christopher Michael wrote:
> On 11/19/2015 05:04 AM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 04:20:11AM -0500, Christopher Michael wrote:
> >> Just some random thoughts inlined below...
> >>
> >> On 11/19/2015 03:05 AM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> >>>
On 19 November 2015 at 20:12, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 19 November 2015 at 19:05, Bill Spitzak wrote:
>> I feel like there is no need to tie it to a surface. In Wayland the client
>> is always notified of any changes to it's state, so it can update the
>> screensaver object to match. (des
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 12:12:10PM -0800, Bill Spitzak wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 19 November 2015 at 19:05, Bill Spitzak wrote:
> > > I feel like there is no need to tie it to a surface. In Wayland the
> > client
> > > is always notified
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 07:12:31PM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 19 November 2015 at 19:05, Bill Spitzak wrote:
> > I feel like there is no need to tie it to a surface. In Wayland the client
> > is always notified of any changes to it's state, so it can update the
> > screensaver object
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:05:58AM -0800, Bill Spitzak wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Christopher Michael <
> cpmich...@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>
> So, after issuing the inhibit request for a surface, the screensaver
> >> (and screenblanking) will be blocked until the surface is des
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 19 November 2015 at 19:05, Bill Spitzak wrote:
> > I feel like there is no need to tie it to a surface. In Wayland the
> client
> > is always notified of any changes to it's state, so it can update the
> > screensaver object to m
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 05:38:34AM -0500, Christopher Michael wrote:
> On 11/19/2015 05:28 AM, Christopher Michael wrote:
> >On 11/19/2015 05:15 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> >>On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 02:04:36AM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 04:20:11AM -0500, Christopher Mi
Hi,
On 19 November 2015 at 19:05, Bill Spitzak wrote:
> I feel like there is no need to tie it to a surface. In Wayland the client
> is always notified of any changes to it's state, so it can update the
> screensaver object to match. (destruction of the screensaver object would of
> course remove
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Christopher Michael <
cpmich...@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
So, after issuing the inhibit request for a surface, the screensaver
>> (and screenblanking) will be blocked until the surface is destroyed,
>> disabled, or otherwise loses visibility or becomes occlud
On 11/19/2015 05:28 AM, Christopher Michael wrote:
On 11/19/2015 05:15 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 02:04:36AM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 04:20:11AM -0500, Christopher Michael wrote:
Just some random thoughts inlined below...
On 11/19/2015 03:05 A
On 11/19/2015 05:15 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 02:04:36AM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 04:20:11AM -0500, Christopher Michael wrote:
Just some random thoughts inlined below...
On 11/19/2015 03:05 AM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
A "screensaver inhibitio
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 02:04:36AM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 04:20:11AM -0500, Christopher Michael wrote:
> > Just some random thoughts inlined below...
> >
> > On 11/19/2015 03:05 AM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > >A "screensaver inhibition protocol" is on the set of
On 11/19/2015 05:04 AM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 04:20:11AM -0500, Christopher Michael wrote:
Just some random thoughts inlined below...
On 11/19/2015 03:05 AM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
A "screensaver inhibition protocol" is on the set of needed enhancements
for Wayland.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 04:20:11AM -0500, Christopher Michael wrote:
> Just some random thoughts inlined below...
>
> On 11/19/2015 03:05 AM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> >A "screensaver inhibition protocol" is on the set of needed enhancements
> >for Wayland. This should turn off screen blanking an
Just some random thoughts inlined below...
On 11/19/2015 03:05 AM, Bryce Harrington wrote:
A "screensaver inhibition protocol" is on the set of needed enhancements
for Wayland. This should turn off screen blanking and any running
screensaver for a period, then re-enabling it later.
An obvious
A "screensaver inhibition protocol" is on the set of needed enhancements
for Wayland. This should turn off screen blanking and any running
screensaver for a period, then re-enabling it later.
An obvious use case is giving presentations. Other use cases include
games, kiosk, automotive infotainme
31 matches
Mail list logo
