<html> <head> <base href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Wrong (ultra tiny/small) cursor size on HiDPI screen" href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=744932#c36">Comment # 36</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Wrong (ultra tiny/small) cursor size on HiDPI screen" href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=744932">bug 744932</a> from <a href="page.cgi?id=describeuser.html&login=otaylor%40redhat.com" title="Owen Taylor <otaylor@redhat.com>"> Owen Taylor</a> <pre>(In reply to Jonas Ådahl from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=744932#c32">comment #32</a>) > (In reply to Owen Taylor from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=744932#c29">comment #29</a>) > > Review of <a href="attachment.cgi?id=299281&action=diff" name="attach_299281" title="Move meta-cursor-* files to new frontends/ directory">attachment 299281</a> <a href="attachment.cgi?id=299281&action=edit" title="Move meta-cursor-* files to new frontends/ directory">[details]</a> <a href='review?bug=744932&attachment=299281'>[review]</a> [review] [review]: > > > > Hmm, in the context of trying to get 3.16.x working well in a hidpi > > environment, this seems like it's a bit of an extraneous refactor. > > > > I dislike the frontends/ naming - I think it's "clever" rather than > > informative rather than informative. There's a pretty well established idea > > that the "frontend" of a system is on the user-facing side > > (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_and_back_ends">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_and_back_ends</a>), so I think people are > > not going to look in a frontends/ directory for the code relating to > > protocols. I think this would be better called protocols/. > > > > From IRC <Jasper> And protocol/ could easily get confused with the Wayland > > protocol .xml files. > > > > Still, I think that's a minor confusion that will quickly go away when > > someone looks inside the directory, as opposed to something that has to be > > explained to people before it makes any sense. > > I suppose protocol/ works as well, but I have some kind of plan to split x11 > into x11/cm and x11/xwayland. Is protocol/ a still good name for that you > think? There are two possibilities: A) The code in x11/cm is specifically code that is particularly about interacting with X11 clients as a compositor - perhaps the frame sync code. In this case, protocol/x11/cm seems fine. B) The code in x11/cm is just general code that is specific to being an X11 compositor without wayland. In this case, being in a directory conceptualized as protocol/frontend code is wrong. The acid test here is can you write down a coherent short description of what goes where, and does the code you are putting in that location actually consistently fit that pattern? Can you try writing that description and see if the cursor code fits it? (winsys/ would be a very general name to cover code about a windowing system, and perhaps it's not *too* confusing to have both winsys/x11 and backends/x11.)</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>