On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 01:38:32PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 11:37:06 +0200 > Alexander Larsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 02:19 -0700, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: > > > My issue with this is that you're tying two things together. You want > > > access to """a surface""", and you think you can do this by having > > > global cross-client objects and handles and such. I don't see a need > > > for this. We can just add a new protocol that does what we want. > > > > > > > I don't understand your disagreement. The protocol you sketch out is > > exactly the same as the one Jonas sketched, only with different names > > (sandboxed_surface instead of xdg_foreign), and it is very much a > > global cross-client object handle. > > > > I obviously don't want the actual XdgSurface object from the other > > client, that would be insane. I just want a reference/handle/name for > > it in my client so that i can pass it as an argument to > > my_xdg_surface.set_parent() > > It makes a huge difference whether you call > xdg_surface.set_parent(xdg_surface *foreign) or > sandboxed_surface.set_as_child(xdg_surface *owned). > > I would probably object the whole concept of "xdg_surface *foreign" > existing, because it implies that there are xdg_surfaces, and > xdg_surfaces that are not really xdg_surfaces.
I don't think this idea has ever been really suggested. You might confuse it with the talk of xdg_foreign, which is more or less what Jasper suggested but with a different name. jonas _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
