Re: [PATCH weston v3 7/8] Define the screensaver inhibitor client interface

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:31:20 +0300
Pekka Paalanen  wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:59:36 -0700
> Bryce Harrington  wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 06:02:09PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:  
> > > On Thu,  7 Apr 2016 16:44:22 -0700
> > > Bryce Harrington  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hook up the API defined in wayland-protocols to allow client screensaver
> > > > inhibition requests.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Bryce Harrington 
> > > > ---
> > > > v2: Update for protocol rename
> > > > 
> > > >  Makefile.am  |  9 +++--
> > > >  clients/simple-shm.c | 28 
> > > >  2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I would really wish we didn't add any more stuff into simple-shm, or
> > > any of the simple-* clients, unless it is essential to them.
> > > 
> > > Something like the subsurfaces demo would be more suitable, that would
> > > allow you to test the inhibi... hmm, wait, no, all subsurfaces there
> > > are still inside the parent. I think you need a new test client that
> > > creates a subsurface outside of the main surface, so you can test the
> > > inhibitor inheritance.
> > 
> > Given the subsurfaces stuff seems to still be a source of disagreement,
> > and evidently is something I totally am not grokking, I don't want to
> > get into implementing subsurface support.  The typical client won't be
> > using subsurfaces, so a simpler demo would be more relevant for them.
> > For clients that *do* use subsurfaces, well it sounds like they could
> > have quite a diverse range of behavioral needs regarding inhibition, so
> > making a good subsurface demo sounds like it could get rather involved.  
> 
> Right.
> 
> > I do understand your point about wanting to avoid shoehorning more
> > features into the simple-* clients; they're already kind of a hodge
> > podge.  So I'll look at creating a new client like simple-shm that is
> > boiled down to just showing off the inhibit feature with a single top
> > level surface.  
> 
> Cool.
> 
> I do not think they are that hodge-podge. If you want, I can list and
> justify all features in each of them, I believe.

Oh, how about adding an inhibitor option to clients/presentation-shm.c?

That's a animated demo for presentation and I think idle-inhibitor
would fit well in the scope. It also does not seem to use toytoolkit, so
you don't have to deal with that.


Thanks,
pq


pgpQpX0kDO1cG.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
wayland-devel mailing list
wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel

Re: [PATCH weston v3 7/8] Define the screensaver inhibitor client interface

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:59:36 -0700
Bryce Harrington  wrote:

> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 06:02:09PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Thu,  7 Apr 2016 16:44:22 -0700
> > Bryce Harrington  wrote:
> >   
> > > Hook up the API defined in wayland-protocols to allow client screensaver
> > > inhibition requests.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Bryce Harrington 
> > > ---
> > > v2: Update for protocol rename
> > > 
> > >  Makefile.am  |  9 +++--
> > >  clients/simple-shm.c | 28 
> > >  2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)  
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I would really wish we didn't add any more stuff into simple-shm, or
> > any of the simple-* clients, unless it is essential to them.
> > 
> > Something like the subsurfaces demo would be more suitable, that would
> > allow you to test the inhibi... hmm, wait, no, all subsurfaces there
> > are still inside the parent. I think you need a new test client that
> > creates a subsurface outside of the main surface, so you can test the
> > inhibitor inheritance.  
> 
> Given the subsurfaces stuff seems to still be a source of disagreement,
> and evidently is something I totally am not grokking, I don't want to
> get into implementing subsurface support.  The typical client won't be
> using subsurfaces, so a simpler demo would be more relevant for them.
> For clients that *do* use subsurfaces, well it sounds like they could
> have quite a diverse range of behavioral needs regarding inhibition, so
> making a good subsurface demo sounds like it could get rather involved.

Right.

> I do understand your point about wanting to avoid shoehorning more
> features into the simple-* clients; they're already kind of a hodge
> podge.  So I'll look at creating a new client like simple-shm that is
> boiled down to just showing off the inhibit feature with a single top
> level surface.

Cool.

I do not think they are that hodge-podge. If you want, I can list and
justify all features in each of them, I believe.


Thanks,
pq


pgpu5aRM710sH.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
wayland-devel mailing list
wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel

Re: [PATCH weston v3 7/8] Define the screensaver inhibitor client interface

[Bryce Harrington]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 06:02:09PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Thu,  7 Apr 2016 16:44:22 -0700
> Bryce Harrington  wrote:
> 
> > Hook up the API defined in wayland-protocols to allow client screensaver
> > inhibition requests.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Bryce Harrington 
> > ---
> > v2: Update for protocol rename
> > 
> >  Makefile.am  |  9 +++--
> >  clients/simple-shm.c | 28 
> >  2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I would really wish we didn't add any more stuff into simple-shm, or
> any of the simple-* clients, unless it is essential to them.
> 
> Something like the subsurfaces demo would be more suitable, that would
> allow you to test the inhibi... hmm, wait, no, all subsurfaces there
> are still inside the parent. I think you need a new test client that
> creates a subsurface outside of the main surface, so you can test the
> inhibitor inheritance.

Given the subsurfaces stuff seems to still be a source of disagreement,
and evidently is something I totally am not grokking, I don't want to
get into implementing subsurface support.  The typical client won't be
using subsurfaces, so a simpler demo would be more relevant for them.
For clients that *do* use subsurfaces, well it sounds like they could
have quite a diverse range of behavioral needs regarding inhibition, so
making a good subsurface demo sounds like it could get rather involved.

I do understand your point about wanting to avoid shoehorning more
features into the simple-* clients; they're already kind of a hodge
podge.  So I'll look at creating a new client like simple-shm that is
boiled down to just showing off the inhibit feature with a single top
level surface.

Bryce
___
wayland-devel mailing list
wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel

Re: [PATCH weston v3 7/8] Define the screensaver inhibitor client interface

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Thu,  7 Apr 2016 16:44:22 -0700
Bryce Harrington  wrote:

> Hook up the API defined in wayland-protocols to allow client screensaver
> inhibition requests.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bryce Harrington 
> ---
> v2: Update for protocol rename
> 
>  Makefile.am  |  9 +++--
>  clients/simple-shm.c | 28 
>  2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Hi,

I would really wish we didn't add any more stuff into simple-shm, or
any of the simple-* clients, unless it is essential to them.

Something like the subsurfaces demo would be more suitable, that would
allow you to test the inhibi... hmm, wait, no, all subsurfaces there
are still inside the parent. I think you need a new test client that
creates a subsurface outside of the main surface, so you can test the
inhibitor inheritance.

Set inhibitor to the main surface, and move the window so that only the
child surface is on an output and see if the output goes to save.


Thanks,
pq


pgpOTbI2WomGi.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
wayland-devel mailing list
wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel