[PATCH 1/2] xdg_shell: Add a new shell protocol.

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:20:57 -0300
Rafael Antognolli <antognolli at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 07:30:54 -0300
> > Rafael Antognolli <antognolli at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:42:13 -0300
> >> > antognolli at gmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> From: Rafael Antognolli <rafael.antognolli at intel.com>
> >> >>
> >> >> xdg_shell is a protocol aimed to substitute wl_shell in the long term,
> >> >> but will not be part of the wayland core protocol. It starts as a
> >> >> non-stable API, aimed to be used as a development place at first, and
> >> >> once features are defined as required by several desktop shells, we can
> >> >> finally make it stable.
> >> >> ---
> >> >>  configure.ac                  |   1 +
> >> >>  protocol/Makefile.am          |   3 +
> >> >>  protocol/xdg-surface.xml      | 326 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >>  src/Makefile.am               |   2 +-
> >> >>  src/wayland-xdg-surface.pc.in |  10 ++
> >> >>  5 files changed, 341 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> >>  create mode 100644 protocol/xdg-surface.xml
> >> >>  create mode 100644 src/wayland-xdg-surface.pc.in

...

> >> > This extended interface (protocol object) gives the wl_surface a role
> >> > (doesn't it?). What should happen when the extended interface is
> >> > destroyed? Should the role be reset?
> >> >
> >> > Would be nice to see consistency in behaviour between different
> >> > extension interfaces.
> >>
> >> OK, will look at this.
> >
> > As a rule of thumb, anything that sets weston_surface::configure is a
> > role. That should let you find them all, including pointer cursors and
> > dnd icons (IIRC these roles are reversable).
> 
> Right, but what would happen if hte role is reset? From the docs,
> subsurfaces are unmapped if the interface is destroyed. Should we do
> the same in the xdg_surface case?

Yes. On the desktop, role-less surfaces are never visible. A compositor
does not know how to show a surface without a role. In the Weston code
base this is evident from role-less surfaces not having a function to
configure them on screen.


Thanks,
pq