<html> <head> <base href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [wayland] Gtk4 API - add an api for shortcut inhibitor since individual device grabs shall/should probably go" href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=791057#c1">Comment # 1</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - [wayland] Gtk4 API - add an api for shortcut inhibitor since individual device grabs shall/should probably go" href="https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=791057">bug 791057</a> from <a href="page.cgi?id=describeuser.html&login=ofourdan%40redhat.com" title="Olivier Fourdan <ofourdan@redhat.com>"> Olivier Fourdan</a> <pre>So, discussing this with Jonas and Carlos on irc, Jonas is in favor of an specific API for that but Carlos not so much: 11:48 <@garnacho> ofourdan: GdkSeat and its grabs aren't going away :) 12:01 < ofourdan> garnacho: but... <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed" title="RESOLVED FIXED - Keyboard grab by popup window causes a session-modal shortcut-inhibition dialog" href="show_bug.cgi?id=789268#c20">https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789268#c20</a> 12:01 < bugbot> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_RESOLVED bz_closed" title="RESOLVED FIXED - Keyboard grab by popup window causes a session-modal shortcut-inhibition dialog" href="show_bug.cgi?id=789268">Bug 789268</a>: Backend: Wayland, normal, gtk-bugs, RESOLVED FIXED, Keyboard grab by popup window causes a session-modal shortcut-inhibition dialog 12:02 <@garnacho> ofourdan: I meant gdk_device_grab with "individual device grabs" 12:04 < ofourdan> garnacho: ok, so you'd be in favour of keeping wayland shortcut inhibition hidden behind the (existing) grab API or should we move it to a specific API (possibly using grabs on platforms such as x11)? 12:12 <@garnacho> ofourdan: I'm afraid of making it a separate API call precisely because support would be spotty across backends. It feels too oddly specific to be honored properly in some (eg. no idea about win32 and quartz) 12:12 < ofourdan> yeah same here, I know nothing about any backends but x11 and wayland 12:13 <@garnacho> otoh, gdk_seat_grab already has iffy promises across backends... :) 12:13 < ofourdan> I was thinking we could make a specific API that would issue a grab when the window is focused, and release it when unfocused, so we would match the Wayland behaviour 12:13 < ofourdan> but maybe it's overkill 12:18 <@garnacho> would be a fine place to set up pointer confinement if we ever added support for that. but yeah, seems a strange wayland detail to be leaked in api 12:20 <@garnacho> ofourdan: IMHO the second chunk of the patch reviewed in that bz comment you pasted is good to get in 12:22 < ofourdan> the one affecting gdk_wayland_seat_grab() ? 12:22 < ofourdan> makes sense 13:59 < ofourdan> garnacho, probably a crazy idea, but we could make it a separate api by (ab)using the GdkSeatCapabilities, like adding a GDK_SEAT_CAPABILITY_KEYBOARD_SHORTCUTS that could be explicitly grabbed on Wayland...? 14:01 < ofourdan> (the idea being that apps remain in control instead of trying to come up with heuristics as to when issue a shortcut inhibition request) 14:08 <@garnacho> ofourdan: I prefer that to an extra api call, indeed :) 14:09 < ofourdan> really? 14:11 <@garnacho> ofourdan: well, at least the "can't make deep promises" api doesn't spread. and it would also set up a precedent to separate other grabbing patterns into semantic api, which I'm unsure about 14:16 < ofourdan> (we can even report the GDK_SEAT_CAPABILITY_KEYBOARD_SHORTCUTS in gdk_wayland_seat_get_capabilities() only when the compositor supports the shortcut inhibitor protocol, neat...)</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>