On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:21:48 +0200 John Kåre Alsaker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Pekka Paalanen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 28 May 2013 19:27:35 +0200 > > John Kåre Alsaker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > + Conceptually simple to implement. Compositors doesn't have to deal with > > > scaling for subsurfaces and they are probably already able to resize > > whole > > > windows. > > > > Why would sub-surfaces have any effect here? > > > I have absolutely no idea how subsurfaces trees with different scaling > factors on surfaces would work in Alexander's proposal. I simply don't > allow specifying it on anything other than top level surfaces, which it > uses for the whole surface tree. The answer is: sub-surfaces do not interact with other surface's buffer scaling AT ALL. Everything except buffer sizes in the protocol are in pels. Sub-surface positions are in pels. Sub-surface sizes are in pels. Whether a parent surface or a sub-surface has some buffer scaling applied or not, does not have ANY effect to anything else. That's the trivial and obvious design. A buffer scale affects only that one particular surface in how its buffer content is interpreted. Nothing more. It's the same with buffer_transform. If the parent had a transformed buffer attached, it does not transform anything else. This is actually quite vital. If there were any interactions, the use of sub-surfaces would suddenly become extremely painful. - pq _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
