<html> <head> <base href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [PATCH] gdk/wayland: allow focusing without a specific timestamp" href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=786455#c6">Comment # 6</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [PATCH] gdk/wayland: allow focusing without a specific timestamp" href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=786455">bug 786455</a> from <a href="page.cgi?id=describeuser.html&login=sfanxiang%40gmail.com" title="Xiang Fan <sfanxiang@gmail.com>"> Xiang Fan</a> <pre>(In reply to Carlos Garnacho from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=786455#c4">comment #4</a>) > I'd like to point out that mutter figuring out a decent timestamp for the > request does not mean that passing GDK_CURRENT_TIME is correct, nor > desirable according to the semantics of a "present" request. > > What would happen here is that the request gets the timestamp at the time > Mutter is processing the request, not the time of the input event that > triggered the window to be shown. The latter is useful to Mutter to > determine whether there was further activity after the present request, the > former is a randomly recent timestamp that will beat anything else, and > pretty much defeats the purpose of a timestamp in the "present" request. If the event comes from an external source not known to Wayland (e.g. type gedit in terminal when a gedit window is already open) the client can't figure out the timestamp anyway. How do we handle this?</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>