Re: [RFC v.2] Extend wl_surface protocol

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 18:26:45 +0100 Axel Davy wrote: > On 11/11/2013, Pekka Paalanen wrote : > > Hi Axel > > > > On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 23:49:25 +0100 > > Axel Davy wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> I've read carefully your new protocol proposition, > >> but I think it doesn't meet the requirements t

Re: [RFC v.2] Extend wl_surface protocol

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:36:43 + Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > > On 11 November 2013 15:52, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 23:49:25 +0100 > > Axel Davy wrote: > >> Except this problem, I think your protocol proposition is fine. > >> I suggest to change the spec > >> to include t

Re: [RFC v.2] Extend wl_surface protocol

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:42:01 + Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > > On 11 November 2013 15:41, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > >> > >> > >> The buffer_queue interface is removed from the buffer_queue-enabled > >> surface. > > > > This could also mention, that the queue is empti

Re: [RFC v.2] Extend wl_surface protocol

Hi, On 11 November 2013 15:41, Pekka Paalanen wrote: >> >> >> The buffer_queue interface is removed from the buffer_queue-enabled >> surface. > > This could also mention, that the queue is emptied first, and release > and presentation feedback events are emitted as usu

Re: [RFC v.2] Extend wl_surface protocol

Hi, On 11 November 2013 15:52, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 23:49:25 +0100 > Axel Davy wrote: >> Except this problem, I think your protocol proposition is fine. >> I suggest to change the spec >> to include the fact that queue is a more complete commit, >> and will take into accou

Re: [RFC v.2] Extend wl_surface protocol

On 11/11/2013, Pekka Paalanen wrote : Hi Axel On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 23:49:25 +0100 Axel Davy wrote: Hello, I've read carefully your new protocol proposition, but I think it doesn't meet the requirements to implement the X Present extension for XWayland. The problem is that I need to be able t

Re: [RFC v.2] Extend wl_surface protocol

Hi Axel On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 23:49:25 +0100 Axel Davy wrote: > Hello, > > I've read carefully your new protocol proposition, > but I think it doesn't meet the requirements to implement > the X Present extension for XWayland. > > The problem is that I need to be able to use the frame > request t

Re: [RFC v.2] Extend wl_surface protocol

Hi, this looks mostly very good. There is one mistake, and some things that need more thought or better wording. On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 06:59:38 -0500 Frederic Plourde wrote: > Hi, > > I have gathered comments and suggestions from colleagues and wayland-devel > reviewers and here is RFC v.2 of

Re: [RFC v.2] Extend wl_surface protocol

Hello, I've read carefully your new protocol proposition, but I think it doesn't meet the requirements to implement the X Present extension for XWayland. The problem is that I need to be able to use the frame request too (I need the frame cal

[RFC v.2] Extend wl_surface protocol

Hi, I have gathered comments and suggestions from colleagues and wayland-devel reviewers and here is RFC v.2 of our buffer queue + presentation feedback protocol extension. Notice the following changes : ---