Re: [PATCH wayland-protocols v2 2/2] Introduce pointer locking and confinement protocol

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > > On 12 January 2016 at 22:28, Bill Spitzak wrote: > > There should *only* be "one shot" requests, which are very quickly > accepted > > or denied by the compositor. The client creates it in

Re: [PATCH wayland-protocols v2 2/2] Introduce pointer locking and confinement protocol

Hi, On 15 January 2016 at 19:30, Bill Spitzak wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Daniel Stone wrote: >> The proposed one-shot-but-delayed request to me felt like a really >> awkward compromise between the two, and not really one backed up by a >>

Re: [PATCH wayland-protocols v2 2/2] Introduce pointer locking and confinement protocol

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 06:28:29PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > > On 15 January 2016 at 19:30, Bill Spitzak wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Daniel Stone wrote: > >> The proposed one-shot-but-delayed request to me felt like a really > >>

Re: [PATCH wayland-protocols v2 2/2] Introduce pointer locking and confinement protocol

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 04:08:57PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > > On 12 January 2016 at 22:28, Bill Spitzak wrote: > > There should *only* be "one shot" requests, which are very quickly accepted > > or denied by the compositor. The client creates it in response to an

Re: [PATCH wayland-protocols v2 2/2] Introduce pointer locking and confinement protocol

Hi, On 12 January 2016 at 22:28, Bill Spitzak wrote: > There should *only* be "one shot" requests, which are very quickly accepted > or denied by the compositor. The client creates it in response to an input > event, and it includes the input event id. > > Most/all things that

Re: [PATCH wayland-protocols v2 2/2] Introduce pointer locking and confinement protocol

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:48:38PM +0800, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 04:38:51PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 4 January 2016 at 04:21, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 04:54:14PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: > > >> I

Re: [PATCH wayland-protocols v2 2/2] Introduce pointer locking and confinement protocol

On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 04:38:51PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > > On 4 January 2016 at 04:21, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 04:54:14PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: > >> I almost wonder if we couldn't make peoples' lives easier by merging > >>

Re: [PATCH wayland-protocols v2 2/2] Introduce pointer locking and confinement protocol

Hi, On 4 January 2016 at 04:21, Peter Hutterer wrote: > On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 04:54:14PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: >> I almost wonder if we couldn't make peoples' lives easier by merging >> locking and confinement into a single interface, adding a bool for >> whether

Re: [PATCH wayland-protocols v2 2/2] Introduce pointer locking and confinement protocol

On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 10:07:42PM -0800, Bill Spitzak wrote: > On 01/03/2016 08:21 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote: > >On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 04:54:14PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: > >> > >>I almost wonder if we couldn't make peoples' lives easier by merging > >>locking and confinement into a single

Re: [PATCH wayland-protocols v2 2/2] Introduce pointer locking and confinement protocol

On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 09:21:27AM +0800, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 02:21:37PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 04:54:14PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > Hi, > > > A couple of (belated) comments ... > > > > > > On 3 December 2015 at 07:28, Jonas Ådahl

Re: [PATCH wayland-protocols v2 2/2] Introduce pointer locking and confinement protocol

On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 02:21:37PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 04:54:14PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: > > Hi, > > A couple of (belated) comments ... > > > > On 3 December 2015 at 07:28, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > > + > > > + > > > + The

Re: [PATCH wayland-protocols v2 2/2] Introduce pointer locking and confinement protocol

On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 02:21:37PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 04:54:14PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: > > Hi, > > A couple of (belated) comments ... > > > > On 3 December 2015 at 07:28, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > > + > > > + > > > + The

Re: [PATCH wayland-protocols v2 2/2] Introduce pointer locking and confinement protocol

On 01/03/2016 08:21 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote: On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 04:54:14PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: I almost wonder if we couldn't make peoples' lives easier by merging locking and confinement into a single interface, adding a bool for whether or not to allow pointer movement (confine)

Re: [PATCH wayland-protocols v2 2/2] Introduce pointer locking and confinement protocol

On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 04:54:14PM +, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > A couple of (belated) comments ... > > On 3 December 2015 at 07:28, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > > + > > + > > + The lock_pointer request lets the client request to disable > > movements of > > +

Re: [PATCH wayland-protocols v2 2/2] Introduce pointer locking and confinement protocol

On 01/01/2016 08:54 AM, Daniel Stone wrote: I almost wonder if we couldn't make peoples' lives easier by merging locking and confinement into a single interface, adding a bool for whether or not to allow pointer movement (confine) or not (lock). Or perhaps, rather than a bool, we could add an

Re: [PATCH wayland-protocols v2 2/2] Introduce pointer locking and confinement protocol

Hi, A couple of (belated) comments ... On 3 December 2015 at 07:28, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > + > + > + The lock_pointer request lets the client request to disable movements > of > + the virtual pointer (i.e. the cursor), effectively locking the pointer > +

[PATCH wayland-protocols v2 2/2] Introduce pointer locking and confinement protocol

This patch introduces a new protocol for locking and confining a pointer. It consists of a new global object with two requests; one for locking the surface to a position, one for confining the pointer to a given region. Signed-off-by: Jonas Ådahl Reviewed-by: Peter Hutterer