[PATCH weston 1/3] Introduce pointer lock interface
ppaalanen at gmail.com
Fri Sep 19 01:54:51 PDT 2014
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:33:13 +0200
Jonas Ådahl <jadahl at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:43:47AM -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:35:40 +0200
> > > Jonas Ådahl <jadahl at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 11:16:06PM +0300, Giulio Camuffo wrote:
> > > > > 2014-09-17 23:11 GMT+03:00 Jonas Ådahl <jadahl at gmail.com>:
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:56:13PM +0300, Giulio Camuffo wrote:
> > > > > >> I haven't looked at the implementation yet, just at the protocol,
> > > but
> > > > > >> isn't _wl_pointer_lock.lock_pointer() returning a new wl_pointer a
> > > > > >> problem? Objects should have a unique factory interface, or else the
> > > > > >> version of the interface can't be determined.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is it really? In the implementation below, the wl_pointer object gets
> > > > > > the same version as the wl_pointer object that is locked. It is also
> > > > > > specified in the last paragraph of _wl_pointer_lock.lock_pointer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mmh, then maybe it is fine. I'm not convinced actually, but I'm too
> > > > > tired now. :)
> > >
> > > No, it's not fine. You cannot define exceptions to the versioning rules
> > > in a protocol spec. We have common code in libwayland handling all
> > > runtime versioning, and you just cannot implement any exceptions.
> > >
> > Technically, those haven't been merged yet... So, technically, we could
> > have it inherit the version from the wl_pointer. That said, I think we'll
> > regret if we do. Even if we did do that, it would cause problems, not
> > because we couldn't update wl_pointer, but because we really couldn't
> > update wl_pointer_lock. All in all, it's a bad plan.
> So, from what I've heard here now is it's clear we don't want to create
> a new wl_pointer object. Other than the versioning issue, we'd have
You could create a wl_pointer, if you do it from interface whose
ancestor is wl_seat, or directly a request in wl_seat. But it does have
downsides like not being able to let the extension mature in Weston
before moving it to Wayland core.
> non-sensible requests (set_cursor) on the additional wl_pointer, and
> potentially more as wl_pointer is extended. The alternatives that has
> come up in IRC discussions and backlog reading are:
> 1) Create a wl_relative_pointer that would replace wl_pointer, i.e.
> have its own button, axis, etc events. This would solve all problems
> related to versioning and wl_pointer being extended, but brings a
> bunch of other problems for example we'd have to extend
> wl_relative_pointer each time wl_pointer is extended to keep up, as
> well as the issue where a wl_pointer is used in a interface or
Either you use wl_pointer and get extensions automatically even if you
don't want to, or you use a new interface that you have to extend
explicitly if you want the same as in wl_pointer. Two sides of a coin.
As concluded in IRC, wl_pointer is not used as argument in any messages.
> 2) Add "begin" and "end" events to wl_pointer_lock that changes the
> state of an existing wl_pointer. After a wl_pointer_lock.begin is
> sent, wl_pointer.motion sends relative motion events. After
> wl_pointer_lock.end it'd revert back to sending absolute motion
This might be confusing if a client creates several wl_pointer objects
for the same seat underlying a wl_seat.
Apart from being confusing just by changing the meaning of an event
via a mode.
> 3) Extend wl_pointer similar to how wl_viewport extends wl_surface with
> a wl_relative_pointer (different from in (1)). Such a
> wl_relative_pointer would, to begin with, only have one request
> (release) and one event (motion). It wouldn't change anything to the
> wl_pointer object, it'd still receive button, axis etc events, but
> motion events are turned into relative motion events via
> wl_relative_pointer, not affecting the position of the cursor, i.e.
> not resulting in wl_pointer.motion events.
This is an interesting idea. I wonder how it works if the client has
two parts (say, libraries or toolkits with their own input processing),
therefore has multiple wl_pointer objects for the same thing, and only
few of them have the pointer_lock interface associated.
Or what if an app manually starts pointer-lock because the toolkit does
not support it? This is not a use case to design for at all, but if it
happens to work, it might be a nice bonus.
> To me, alternative (3) seems like the best choice. It'd give us
> possibility to continue to control the pointer cursor via the original
> wl_pointer object, as it will still have focus. It also allows us to make
I don't think we ever want the compositor drawing the cursor in
pointer-locked mode... do we? Would there be any use cases benefitting
Though, I don't see anything wrong with requiring the client to
explicitly unset the cursor when pointer-lock activates. Or are there
any room for races where the cursor might flicker?
> use of any future wl_pointer additions (problem being that they could
> potentially conflict, but that wouldn't be unique for
> wl_relative_pointer AFAIK). Alternative (2) would give us the same
> benefits, but it feels rather awkward to temporarily change the meaning
> of wl_pointer.motion.
Agreed about 2).
> Given that the three above choices are more or less semantically
> equivalent it makes sense to try it out in a already used API. From what
> I can see, the two common places it'd be used are SDL and GLFW, which
> have different API's doing more or less the same thing, so it'd probably
> be good to try it out in both of these.
A very good idea. That is how we get some perspective to the design and
There are at least to different basic use cases:
- Quake, i.e. FPS-games with mouse-look
- a strategy game, which still uses a cursor, but implements special
behaviour when running against window edges like scrolling the view,
likely with the pointer confined to the window
A good question is, do we want to support the latter with
pointer-lock, or should it be another extension?
Also, the latter probably wants the same motion acceleration algorithm
as the desktop has, but the former probably not.
More information about the wayland-devel