On 12/07/2012 06:39 AM, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
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.
I believe he wants to avoid the need for a video-playback library to
need a way to tell the main program "you have to call commit on your
surface because I just changed the video frame".
Changes in the transform from parent to child would require a commit on
the parent (so that when the client is resized, the frame and video
player resize in unison). But changing what buffer to show as the child
would only require a child commit.
_______________________________________________
wayland-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
