On 28/03/16 16:03, Drew DeVault wrote:
On 2016-03-27 10:21 PM, Jasper St. Pierre wrote:
I would rather the effort be spent making secure interfaces, exactly
as you've described.
Agreed. I think it should be pretty straightforward:
Client->Server: What features do you support?
Server->Client: These privledged features are available.
Client->Server: I want this feature (nonblocking)
[compositor prompts user to agree]
Server->Client: Yes/no
[compositor enables the use of those protocols for this client]
That looks like the bind operation to me. Why do you need a
new protocol?
I can start to write up some XML to describe this formally. We can take
some inspiration from the pointer-constraints protocol and I'll also
rewrite that protocol with this model in mind. Does anyone see anything
missing from this exchange?
So, you are OK with being asked *every time* if you accept that VLC
is trying to go fullscreen? I most definitely am not :D
This is why we wanted to let distro devs decide for their users what
the default policy should be. We then need to have a good UI for users
to realize that the application is running in fullscreen mode (following
what chrome and firefox are doing is likely a good idea).
However, Jasper has a point that we need to be sure that we can
override the policy in a consistent way across all backends. I have a
plan for this.
_______________________________________________
wayland-devel mailing list
wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
