[PATCH wayland] doc: Fill in high level description for Surfaces

[Jon A. Cruz]

On 12/19/2014 04:25 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 20:29:29 +0000
> Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Friday, December 12, 2014, Bill Spitzak <spitzak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>

...

>>> I would avoid the use of the term "double buffered". Possible alternative:
>>> "The change does not happen until the next wl_surface.commit." All current
>>> talk about double-buffering in commit should use words like "deferred" or
>>> "pending" instead.
>>>
>>
>> Or 'latched'. Either way, I think 'double-buffered' referring to the
>> surface state updated on commit has to go.
> 
> I would be fine with that change. I started using the "double-buffered
> state" term when nothing better came to my mind. After all, display
> hardware can have double-buffered registers, etc. Yes, a latch.
> 
> All I want is that there is a single term which we use consistenly to
> mean that wl_surface.foo(x) only readies the foo=x assignment in the
> server, and the wl_surface.commit() actually makes it happen atomically
> with all the other similar state for this wl_surface.
> 

In general that sounds like the general use case for "transaction" and
"commit" as terms. So we might have "Foo is added to the pending state
transaction".