Re: [RFC wayland 1/2] server: implement intact resources

2015-11-19 Thread Pekka Paalanen
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:22:00 +0200 Giulio Camuffo wrote: > 2015-03-23 12:00 GMT+02:00 Marek Chalupa : > > Destroyed seems confusing to me too, since the resource is not really > > destroyed. What about inert or unalive ? > > Inert is ok, imho. On the client side they are called zombie > objects.

Re: [RFC wayland 1/2] server: implement intact resources

2015-03-27 Thread Marek Chalupa
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Hardening wrote: > Le 19/03/2015 09:11, Marek Chalupa a écrit : > > When server looses some capability (like pointer or keyboard), > > it takes some time to get this information to clients. > > When client sends request with new_id argument to the object > > that

Re: [RFC wayland 1/2] server: implement intact resources

2015-03-24 Thread Hardening
Le 19/03/2015 09:11, Marek Chalupa a écrit : > When server looses some capability (like pointer or keyboard), > it takes some time to get this information to clients. > When client sends request with new_id argument to the object > that has been just destroyed on server-side (client > does not know

Re: [RFC wayland 1/2] server: implement intact resources

2015-03-23 Thread Bill Spitzak
On 03/23/2015 04:22 AM, Giulio Camuffo wrote: 2015-03-23 12:00 GMT+02:00 Marek Chalupa : Destroyed seems confusing to me too, since the resource is not really destroyed. What about inert or unalive ? Inert is ok, imho. On the client side they are called zombie objects... maybe for consistency

Re: [RFC wayland 1/2] server: implement intact resources

2015-03-23 Thread Giulio Camuffo
2015-03-23 12:00 GMT+02:00 Marek Chalupa : > Destroyed seems confusing to me too, since the resource is not really > destroyed. What about inert or unalive ? Inert is ok, imho. On the client side they are called zombie objects... maybe for consistency it'd be better to keep that here too. > > On

Re: [RFC wayland 1/2] server: implement intact resources

2015-03-23 Thread Marek Chalupa
Destroyed seems confusing to me too, since the resource is not really destroyed. What about inert or unalive ? On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Bill Spitzak wrote: > I think the name "intact" is really confusing. Can it be instead called > "destroyed"? > > > On 03/19/2015 01:11 AM, Marek Chalupa

Re: [RFC wayland 1/2] server: implement intact resources

2015-03-19 Thread Bill Spitzak
I think the name "intact" is really confusing. Can it be instead called "destroyed"? On 03/19/2015 01:11 AM, Marek Chalupa wrote: When server looses some capability (like pointer or keyboard), it takes some time to get this information to clients. When client sends request with new_id argument

[RFC wayland 1/2] server: implement intact resources

2015-03-19 Thread Marek Chalupa
When server looses some capability (like pointer or keyboard), it takes some time to get this information to clients. When client sends request with new_id argument to the object that has been just destroyed on server-side (client does not know about it yet), we still have to create the resource. I