On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:11:40 +0000 Dave Ball <openm...@underhand.org> said:
> Warren Baird wrote: > > perhaps the landscape / portrait flag should just contrain the > > rotation? So if you flip the phone 180 degrees, you get the > > 'expected' behaviour, but if you just flip it 90 degrees nothing changes? > > Given that these properties are for the orientation an application > requests (to the WM) should ideally be used, I'm not sure how the actual > rotation would help? Working from rotation would also complicate the > behaviour on devices that are normally landscape - such as the Nokia N900. > > What I'm suggesting is that the application just says "landscape" or > "portrait", and then the WM would decide the most appropriate way to > orient the screen for that device. > > If an application doesn't request either landscape or portrait, then the > WM would rotate the screen according to the device orientation, through > each of the positions the device could be held (including inverted). So > the WM definitely needs to know the actual orientation of the device > (such as from the FSO api), but I think the application itself only > needs to request Landscape, Portrait or neither. you want a bitmask for 4 rotations as well as flips. why? because this is what xrandr supports. you want to give a mask for which rotations the app "wants" why do u need both 90 and 270 degrees for example? look at a g1. u slide kbd open to one side of the screen. now imaging if u slid the screen the other way you have a different button set along the other side. eg a set of psp-style game-pad controllers for games. so games would request 270 and aps rthat are built for text input with hw kbd are 90. etc. etc. -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ras...@rasterman.com _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community