Sub-surface protocol

[Kristian Høgsberg]

On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 01:07:33PM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> 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?

I always thought that the commit on the parent surface would trigger
the sub-surfaces, but not replace sub-surface commit.  Only commit
those sub-surfaces that had commit called on them.  This way, a
library or component can manage a sub-surface and doesn't need to know
whether it's a sub-surface (and thus doesn't need commit) or if it's a
top-level surface (and needs a commit).  Another way to think about it
is that the sub-surface commit is latched state of the parent surface.

Kristian