On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 13:38 +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). >
So, you disagree with xdg_surface.set_parent accepting both xdg_surface and xdg_foreign objects? One could add xdg_surface.set_foreign_parent() then to make it explicit what is meant. _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
