On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Rafael Antognolli <antogno...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Jason, > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> > wrote: > > Hi Rafael, > > > > > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Rafael Antognolli <antogno...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> I've been looking the Weston code relative to maximized windows, and > >> it seems that the respective code for minimized windows wouldn't be > >> hard to implement. > >> > >> The questions are: are there any plans to add it? Is there someone > >> already working on it? If not, would it be OK if I start submitting > >> patches to try to add support for this? > > > > > > A month or two ago, Scott Morreau was working on it. However, his work > > never made into weston for a variety of reasons. Personally, I'm glad to > > see someone interested in working on it again because it's something that > > wayland will need eventually. > > > > The place to start on it is probably with the following e-mail and the > long > > string of replies: > > > > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2013-March/007814.html > > > > There was quite a bit of discussion about how to handle it from a > protocol > > level, but Scott never made an actual version 2. I'd suggest you start > by > > reading the chain of e-mails (it goes into April, not just March). There > > were quite a few suggestions in there that could be incorporated. > > Hopefully, you can pick through the e-mail discussion and figure out what > > the consensus was. It'd be good to have a pair of fresh eyes look at it. > > Thanks for pointing that out. I just went through the chain of > e-mails, but I don't think there was a consensus there. > > It also seems that the minimize implementation is a little more > complex than just hiding surfaces and marking some flags. Which makes > me not so comfortable doing an implementation without a consensus > about what should be implemented, and with some orientation. > > That said, I'm not sure I'm really going to take this task. > I didn't intend to scare you off. Honestly, I don't know for 100% certain how much weston machinery is needed to implement it. It would require some sort of set of flags to keep the compositor and shell plugin in sync. That said, I don't know if its quite as difficult as Scott made it sound. As far as direction goes, the first thing is to think through use-cases and settle on a protocol. Unfortunately, the discussion I linked you to seemed to go nowhere. However, a lot of that was Scott saying, "This is the way I want to do it and I'm not going to change." If you look at the other comments, I think there was some consensus in there (at least in a general direction). Feel free to throw some XML together and we can re-start the discussion. For that matter, if you can come up with a way to do it as a weston extension for now (with the hopes of putting it in wayland core later), things can be a lot more flexible and we can play around with protocol concepts as we go. Once a basic protocol is in place, then the client-side needs to be implemented in tinytk (window.c) and the server-side needs to be implemented in weston. I'm sorry "I want to add X feature" isn't simpler. Basically every new major protocol piece goes through a long mailing list discussion and a lot of revision. --Jason Ekstrand
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel