Sub-surface protocol

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 12:34:46 +0200
Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:45:14 -0800
> Bill Spitzak <spitzak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Committing changes
> > 
> > I think it may work that a commit on a parent is an implied commit on 
> > all the children. To make a set of child surfaces all resize in unison, 
> > change them all but don't call commit on any, and call commit on the 
> > main window after all are updated.

Actually, I do like this one. Does anyone have anything against it?

> > An async video player process could call commit on the child surface for 
> > it's changes as the frames play. It could even change the resolution by 
> > changing the local transform of the surface, though it has to result in 
> > the same-sized rectangle as before.
> > 
> > It is possible it may be very difficult for toolkits to be written to 
> > defer the commits for the window pieces. In that case some of your ideas 
> > may be necessary.
> 
> Yes, it is otherwise a nice idea, but does not easily work for
> the independent video sink case. We probably need more information on
> how these video sinks and flash plugin APIs work, whether they have any
> API for synchronizing resizes, or do they just expect the window system
> to notify them directly like I assume X11 does.
> 
> Or should we just design a protocol that is nice, clean, and works, and
> expect clients to deal with it. That would be the Wayland way. Daniel,
> Kristian?
> 
> This really needs suggestions from toolkit implementors, too.


Thanks
pq