On 01/02/2012 06:00 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote: > On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:55:47PM -0800, Chase Douglas wrote: >> On 01/02/2012 03:29 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote: >>> Toolkits need to know which touch event emulated a pointer event and which >>> ones do not. To quote Carlos Garnacho: >>> >>> GTK+ does client-side windows by default (GdkWindows without a backing X >>> window), for this to work the toplevel window in the client needs to >>> select for more events that it wouldn't normally select for in order to >>> cater for the event masks in such child "windows". This means that >>> ideally GTK+ should set the touch events mask in the toplevel, and then >>> find out whether the "window" would receive pointer or touch events for >>> the sequence emulating the pointer, and perform the emulation itself. >>> >>> Reported-by: Carlos Garnacho <carl...@gnome.org> >>> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutte...@who-t.net> >>> --- >>> IIRC we did discuss this months ago and decided not to set the flag but the >>> above use-case cannot easily be solved right now. Adding this flag in the >>> server is simple enough. >>> >>> XI2.h | 1 + >>> specs/XI2proto.txt | 8 ++++++-- >>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/XI2.h b/XI2.h >>> index 4368006..e864b06 100644 >>> --- a/XI2.h >>> +++ b/XI2.h >>> @@ -158,6 +158,7 @@ >>> #define XIPointerEmulated (1 << 16) >>> /* Device event flags (touch events only) */ >>> #define XITouchPendingEnd (1 << 16) >>> +#define XITouchEmulatingPointer (1 << 17) >> >> Is this easier than having a dual-purpose XIPointerEmulated flag? We >> would have to push XITouchPendingEnd to the 17th bit, but an ABI break >> right now isn't too bad. >> >> Or, do you have a specific reason why we shouldn't reuse the flag? > > yeah, to avoid confusion. XIPointerEmulated and XITouchEmulatingPointer have > exactly the opposite meaning, so I'd rather have the two with different > names. > > Plus, we get semi-namespacing this way too for the flags.
Fair enough. Reviewed-by: Chase Douglas <chase.doug...@canonical.com> Let me know if you'd like me to apply and release a new version of the proto, though I won't get to it till tomorrow. _______________________________________________ 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