My understanding is the reason for the "dummy" surface is to control
what surfaces are committed. If the rule is that commit commits all
child surfaces, and you want a window with both "synchronous" and
"async" child surfaces, you would instead make a dummy surface, and make
the real surface an
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 21:54:50 +0100
John Kåre Alsaker wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > However, the dummy surface as the root surface (i.e. the window main
> > surface) will not work, because it is the surface the shell will be
> > managing. Sub-surfaces cannot
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 18:14:12 +0100
> John Kåre Alsaker wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>> > On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 21:50:20 +0100
>> > John Kåre Alsaker wrote:
>> >
>> >> My goals for a subsurface implementat
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 18:14:12 +0100
John Kåre Alsaker wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 21:50:20 +0100
> > John Kåre Alsaker wrote:
> >
> >> My goals for a subsurface implementation are these:
> >> - Allow nesting to ease interoperability for c
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 21:50:20 +0100
> John Kåre Alsaker wrote:
>
>> My goals for a subsurface implementation are these:
>> - Allow nesting to ease interoperability for client side code.
>> - Allow a surface without any content to have an inpu
On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 21:50:20 +0100
John Kåre Alsaker wrote:
> My goals for a subsurface implementation are these:
> - Allow nesting to ease interoperability for client side code.
> - Allow a surface without any content to have an input region and let
> the content be presented in a number of adjac
Pekka Paalanen wrote:
Commit should work the same way. It should commit itself and all it's
children. Furthermore it should commit all reordering of it's
immediate children.
Could you give some rationale why this is preferred to any other way,
for instance sub-surface commit needing a main sur
My goals for a subsurface implementation are these:
- Allow nesting to ease interoperability for client side code.
- Allow a surface without any content to have an input region and let
the content be presented in a number of adjacent subsurfaces. This
would simplify input handling by a lot.
- Allow
Hi John,
thanks for the comments, I have some more questions about your
suggestions.
On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 16:56:47 +0100
John Kåre Alsaker wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > we started a discussion about sub-surfaces in Wayland in [1].
...
> >
>
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> we started a discussion about sub-surfaces in Wayland in [1].
> Based on that, and with heavy limiting of scope, I present my first
> sub-surface draft:
>
> http://cgit.collabora.com/git/user/pq/wayland.git/log/?h=subsurface-v1
Hi all,
we started a discussion about sub-surfaces in Wayland in [1].
Based on that, and with heavy limiting of scope, I present my first
sub-surface draft:
http://cgit.collabora.com/git/user/pq/wayland.git/log/?h=subsurface-v1
http://cgit.collabora.com/git/user/pq/weston.git/log/?h=subsurface-v1
11 matches
Mail list logo
