Proposal to change subsurface extension

[Uli Schlachter]

Hi,

On 13.06.2013 16:06, John Kåre Alsaker wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Libwayland does not synchronize, it only protects the queues for the
>> very short moment each time they are modified. It does not cause one
>> application component to stall and wait for another component to wake
>> up, realize there is something to do, and then do it. Libwayland also
>> does not force other threads to wake up, if one thread wants to do
>> something. And with the fd locking patches for libwayland-client, that
>> will actually be true all the way.
>>
> The sort of synchronization required is exactly the same as what is needed
> by libwayland-client. It needs to send some bytes to the compositor without
> being interrupted by other threads. My point here holds unless
> libwayland-client gets a communication channel per thread (instead of per
> wl_display).
[...]

Just my 5c:

Please, pretty please, avoid anything which looks even remotely like
XLockDisplay(). This is a big hammer which makes every synchronization problem
look like a nail and it will be used for too many things.

(Also, it's not far from XLockDisplay() to XGrabServer() which is another thing
which should be avoided as much as possible)

Cheers,
Uli
-- 
Cow: He is a lawyer, too?
Mooseblood: Ma'am, I was already a bloodsucking parasite.
   All I needed was a briefcase!