mart added a comment.
In D12820#275870 <https://phabricator.kde.org/D12820#275870>, @davidedmundson wrote: > Don't feel the need to change the code unless you and whoever else agree. > I'm not forcing anything, just commenting on my preference. nono, i'm just trying to thoroughly think about it :) > I think you'd need to communicate the same order with all clients. > That could be just replacing virtual_desktop_added/virtual_desktop_removed/done with set_virtual_desktops(wl_array<string>); or something else. that may make more difficult to notice what desktop has been added... what about virtual_desktop_added*id, position)? that way, mapping it to a model would become really trivial >> whith this, would still be possible to allow maybe in the future desktops per-output whicj Martin was talking about? > > WRT positioning, probably. You'd need new API, but you wouldn't have redundant API. > WRT which one is active, this code wouldn't cover that as-is. it would work if added/removed also had an output as parameters, then they can be different independent sets, tough that would force us to think about it right now, which i'm not too sure REPOSITORY R127 KWayland REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D12820 To: mart, #kwin, #plasma, graesslin, hein Cc: davidedmundson, zzag, bshah, romangg, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
