On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 11:26:05AM -0600, Chris Bagwell wrote: > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Cedric Sodhi <man...@gmx.net> wrote: > > Hi, this is a "wish" i had for the driver that I'd consider very useful. > > I've recently written a simple bash script which scripts the > > functionality of the button, an example the button on the wheel changes > > which keycodes the wheel sumit and hence which function in cotrnols. > > > > If anyone is interested I'd like to share it. > > > > The problem is, where even that is kind of cumbersome, more complicated > > interaction because a real pain in the arse. Since the driver will only > > emit keyboard events, everything will go through X. > > > > Right now, I'm using my WM (openbox), to respond to the global keys to > > control the behaviour. For example the touchring button emits Ctrl + > > Shift + Alt + T which openbox catches and runs my script on, to change > > the mappings and give feedback through osd_cat. > > > > And whereas I could do the same for all buttons and find the most exotic > > keybindings to never collide with running programs, it becomes quite > > cumbersom to continuously remap them, map the bindings in Openbox and so > > on. The amount of required keybindings which are used NOWHERE else on > > the system grows exponentially with functionality. > > > > All these problems would immediately be solved if, instead of > > keybindings, actual programs could be bound to keys. It would greatly > > simply certain methods and give us a great flexibilty to write our own > > complex behaviour without any effort. > > Launching scripts from inside a driver is pretty much a non-starter I suspect. > > One idea that quickly comes to me is perhaps xsetwacom could be > extended to allow at least a hand full of the special keys defined in > X11/XF86keysym.h. Those "internet keyboard" ones are basically meant > to launch scripts and not be used directly by end applications. So > although conflict can occur, they will be smaller I think and user can > use standard GUI tools (Gnome Keyboard Shortcuts for example) to bind > to your scripts as needed. >
Might you elaborate on why this would be a "non-starter". I don't see any per se reason why this would not be possible, useful and as-secure as the current driver. Internet or keyboard or not, in general you might also find ultra-exotic keycombos on normal keyboards that will only collide with 2% chance. However, that option of starting programs makes a lot of things significantly easier. If you argue against the very point that starting a program is "insecure" or whatsoever, please explain why in particular and also consider that I might aswell bind a keysequence that opens a terminal (Usally Alt + F1) and executes an arbitrary command. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any company that requires sensitive data to be transmitted over the Web. Learn how to best implement a security strategy that keeps consumers' information secure and instills the confidence they need to proceed with transactions. http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl _______________________________________________ Linuxwacom-devel mailing list Linuxwacom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxwacom-devel
