On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 01:07:33PM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 12:34:46 +0200 > Pekka Paalanen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:45:14 -0800 > > Bill Spitzak <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Committing changes > > > > > > I think it may work that a commit on a parent is an implied commit on > > > all the children. To make a set of child surfaces all resize in unison, > > > change them all but don't call commit on any, and call commit on the > > > main window after all are updated. > > Actually, I do like this one. Does anyone have anything against it?
I always thought that the commit on the parent surface would trigger the sub-surfaces, but not replace sub-surface commit. Only commit those sub-surfaces that had commit called on them. This way, a library or component can manage a sub-surface and doesn't need to know whether it's a sub-surface (and thus doesn't need commit) or if it's a top-level surface (and needs a commit). Another way to think about it is that the sub-surface commit is latched state of the parent surface. Kristian _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
