On Thursday 03 March 2011 4:14:04 pm Soeren Sandmann wrote: > James Jones <jajo...@nvidia.com> writes: > >> With a scheme like this, the Composite extension itself would become > >> simply a way to support legacy applications since window redirection > >> doesn't really mean anything for InputOnly windows. > > > > I would love to see the composite extension extended rather than > > replaced. > > What I meant by "simply a way to support legacy applications" was just > that with the scheme described, if all applications were to magically be > ported over to the new way, there wouldn't be any need for Composite at > all, because there simply wouldn't be any InputOutput windows to > redirect. > > > I think the API changes needed to implement the basics of this would > > be pretty minimal. > > I believe the only new feature needed in the X server is a > client-visible refcount on Pictures, and this is only so that the > compositing manager can keep the pictures in the update requests around > without copying them.
Interesting. I'm not really sold on the switch to InputOnly windows though. It sounds very elegant in theory, but I don't like the idea of apps needing to use a separate codepath depending on whether a composite manager is running, and I'm not convinced it doesn't have other side effects. I'll definitely have to give it some more thought though. Thanks, -James > > Soren _______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel