On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 16:14:15 +0300 Pekka Paalanen <[email protected]> wrote:
> This change is breaks the protocol. Hi all, these two patches are my current plan, and after 2-3 days of careful specification writing, I curse the typo quoted above. ;-) I have implemented the wl_surface.attach double-buffering in weston and demo clients so far. All these protocol changes require some changes in all clients. I will also fix Weston to live up to these specifications. Now is the time to point out problems in the suggested protocol changes, bikeshed the names and terminology, and make sure the language is clear, understandable, and defines all relevant aspects. These changes should fix all the races we might have for a single wl_surface. I can see wl_surface.commit be used also for multi-buffer surfaces and what not. There will be further work to specify and fix shell protocols to be atomic, too, leveraging wl_surface.commit as much as possible. One open question I haven't really thought about yet is the frame callback, should it fall under wl_surface.commit too? Thanks, pq _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
