On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 10:28:13 -0800 > Bill Spitzak <spit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I believe wl_surface.damage should be defined as "the same as > > w_surface.buffer_damage if the only transforms are due to an integer > buffer > > scale and the 8 possible buffer transforms". This means it is undefined > if > > the wl_scalar proposal is used, and avoids the need to define it for any > > future transform possibilities. > > I have no idea how that could help with anything. It does not matter > what the mapping is between surface and buffer coordinate systems: > damage is in surface space, and buffer_damage is in buffer space. There > is nothing ambiguous about that, even if someone added even more > transformations between them. > A rectangle in a rotated coordinate space, or which has edges or corners that do not correspond to pixel edges/corners is ambiguous as far as describing what pixels are damaged. I suppose you could say that it is enlarged to the bounding box in buffer space but I think it might be better to just say that you should not use the old api.
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
