Re: Proposal to change subsurface extension

2013-06-19 Thread John Kåre Alsaker
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:50 AM, John Kåre Alsaker wrote: > I don't see a way to have a group of surfaces in sync with a video > surface operating independently on top work in the current > implementation without locking. It seems that only work for a single > surface and not a group of surfaces.

Re: Proposal to change subsurface extension

2013-06-18 Thread John Kåre Alsaker
I don't see a way to have a group of surfaces in sync with a video surface operating independently on top work in the current implementation without locking. It seems that only work for a single surface and not a group of surfaces. The current implementation then also requires the ability to map a

Re: Proposal to change subsurface extension

2013-06-13 Thread Uli Schlachter
Hi, On 13.06.2013 16:06, John Kåre Alsaker wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: >> Libwayland does not synchronize, it only protects the queues for the >> very short moment each time they are modified. It does not cause one >> application component to stall and wait for

Re: Proposal to change subsurface extension

2013-06-13 Thread John Kåre Alsaker
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > Libwayland does not synchronize, it only protects the queues for the > very short moment each time they are modified. It does not cause one > application component to stall and wait for another component to wake > up, realize there is somet

Re: Proposal to change subsurface extension

2013-06-13 Thread Pekka Paalanen
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:03:26 +0200 John Kåre Alsaker wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Pekka Paalanen > wrote: > > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:35:36 +0200 > > John Kåre Alsaker wrote: > > > > > I propose the we should change the commit behavior to having > > > commit on the toplevel wl_su

Re: Proposal to change subsurface extension

2013-06-13 Thread John Kåre Alsaker
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:35:36 +0200 > John Kåre Alsaker wrote: > > > I propose the we should change the commit behavior to having commit > > on the toplevel wl_surface > > commit itself and all it's subsurfaces atomically. Commiting on > >

Re: Proposal to change subsurface extension

2013-06-13 Thread Pekka Paalanen
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:35:36 +0200 John Kåre Alsaker wrote: > I propose the we should change the commit behavior to having commit > on the toplevel wl_surface > commit itself and all it's subsurfaces atomically. Commiting on > subsurfaces should be a no-op. When a component is running asynchrono

Proposal to change subsurface extension

2013-06-13 Thread John Kåre Alsaker
I propose the we should change the commit behavior to having commit on the toplevel wl_surface commit itself and all it's subsurfaces atomically. Commiting on subsurfaces should be a no-op. That is to allow eglSwapBuffers to be used in subsurfaces, should you manage to get it to be non-blocking. Th