Hi, On 28 September 2015 at 16:54, Jasper St. Pierre <jstpie...@mecheye.net> wrote: > To be honest, the more I think about it, the more likely I am to just > want to add back in a global coordinate system. There's too many > problems that GNOME is having by omitting it. For starters, menu and > tooltip positioning that works correctly.
You don't need a global co-ordinate system for that: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2013-April/008665.html > Saving and restarting window > positions is something that I've desperately missed ever since I > started using Linux on my multimonitor desktop rig again. You don't need a global co-ordinate system for that: the consensus for save/restore has long been for a cookie-based system, which would allow the compositor to store position, workspace, and any other attributes. > I don't see many of the advantages of omitting a global coordinate > system anymore, and I don't see many downsides, and a lot of issues > we're having seem to be predicated by this. I want Wayland to succeed, > and that might mean that we go back to a simpler idea. Those are two problems, both of which are well understood and relatively easily solved. Omitting a global co-ordinate space does solve a great deal of problems, particularly in the input space, and opens up a whole array of possibilities that X's communication of a flat global co-ordinate space precluded us from ever pursuing. Rowing back on that because of two problems which can be better solved elsewhere would be a real waste, and not something I've seen any appetite for amongst the others. Cheers, Daniel > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:13 AM, Daniel Stone <dan...@fooishbar.org> wrote: >> On 25 September 2015 at 18:46, Bill Spitzak <spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> It is a design decision in Wayland/desktop to not expose absolute >>>> window positions to clients at all. This means that you simply cannot >>>> know where a top-level window is precisely, you can only know which >>>> outputs it overlaps with. >>> >>> This is an interesting experiement but I believe it is doomed in the long >>> run. I would try it >> >> We have, ever since Wayland's creation. It works. >> >>> but I think the end result is that every single desktop >>> environment will add this as an "extension" >> >> None of them have: not GNOME, not KDE, not Enlightenment, not IVI, not >> digital signage, not video walls, not set-top boxes, not smart TVs, >> not Weston/Maynard on Raspberry Pi, not phones/tablets, not anything. >> >>> because so much software will not work without it. >> >> It does. >> >>> You have to realize that X and Windows and OSX all use >>> 2 numbers to describe the location of a window >> >> Yeah, I'm well aware of how the X input stack works. >> >>> and thus getting software to >>> stop assuming that is probably a Sisyphean task. >> >> It hasn't been. >> >>>> Windows that are not top-level can often be placed relative to another >>>> wl_surface. This is the only form of precise positioning supported on >>>> desktops. >>> >>> This is correct and could make it work in the vast majority of cases, but >>> supporting portable programs is going to be difficult and hacky. Qt code, >>> for instance, calculate QPoint objects (which contain 2 numbers) and assume >>> the result fully defines where a menu will pop up. Now they usually >>> calculate these by asking for the position of existing widgets and adding >>> offsets, so if the returned coordinates are in a space such that the future >>> parent is at 0,0 then this will work acceptably. But I fully expect Qt to >>> first look for the window-position extension and use that if possible, with >>> this hack as a rarely-used fallback. >> >> Your expectations are wrong. Look at how Qt has worked just fine (and >> shipped in many environments) without it for years. >> >> This is another dead end of a thread. It's been this way for years >> because of very valid reasons, it works (despite you being convinced >> that it could never work) fine, and it's not changing. >> >> If you'd like to productively contribute to this, perhaps you could >> pick up the surface position negotiation protocol, which would allow >> clients to guarantee that menus would not be positioned off-screen. >> >> Cheers, >> Daniel >> _______________________________________________ >> wayland-devel mailing list >> wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel > > > > -- > Jasper _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
