[PATCH weston 1/3] Introduce pointer lock interface
jason at jlekstrand.net
Mon Sep 22 11:31:27 PDT 2014
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com>
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 11:43:22 -0700
> Jason Ekstrand <jason at jlekstrand.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 1:29 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com>
> > > On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:20:53 +0200
> > > Jonas Ådahl <jadahl at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:00:21AM -0600, Jasper St. Pierre wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:54 AM, Pekka Paalanen <
> ppaalanen at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > non-sensible requests (set_cursor) on the additional
> > > and
> > > > > > > potentially more as wl_pointer is extended. The alternatives
> > > 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
> > > up, as
> > > > > > > well as the issue where a wl_pointer is used in a
> interface or
> > > > > > > request.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Either you use wl_pointer and get extensions automatically even
> > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > But it is by wl_pointer_lock.lock_pointer, and who says it'll be the
> > > > place its used as an argument?
> > >
> > > I think wl_seat might be a better argument. After all, all
> > > wl_pointer objects created from the same wl_seat in the same way
> > > will be identical. I think we should keep it that way, too.
> > >
> > That's a decent idea. We could simply have
> > wl_pointer_lock.get_relative_pointer(seat) which creates a relative
> > pointer. At that point, all the absolute pointers get a leave. The
> > client, if it wants, can create multiple relative pointers. Once all of
> > them are destroyed, the absolute pointers get an enter again, and off we
> Mind, you are saying that simply a client creating the
> wl_relative_pointer will never get normal wl_pointer events as long as
> a wl_relative_pointer object exists. Is this a deliberate design
> choice? You seem to contradict it right below here with the leave
> > One note though: I don't think we want to try too hard to make multiple
> > pointers per seat seamless. That's going to be an awkward case no matter
> > what we do. We do need to make it well-defined. I think that having all
> > the absolute pointers get a leave is a reasonable way to do that. If the
> > compositor has to break the lock, all the relative pointers should get a
> > leave and absolute motion resumes. (It probably won't get an absolute
> > enter right away. The use probably went to an expose or alt-tab view so
> > probably would have gotten an absolute leave anyway.)
> Yes, that is a logical consequence of the "all <wl_* input device type>
> objects for the same wl_seat and created the same way are
> identical." :-)
> It's actually a pretty logical implication from the globals: binding
> several times to a specific global name creates identical objects that
> all refer to the same thing, and act the same way at the same time.
> This might be a good design rule to set, don't you think?
> > > > Hmm. Maybe we need to lock pointer given a seat instead. It'd change
> > > > "mode" of the underlying pointer to be locked in its position, i.e.
> > > > send any wl_pointer.motion events. Locking could then be ref
> counted, so
> > > > that as long as more than one wl_relative_pointer is alive, it's in
> > > > relative mode. Maybe thats unnecessarily complex though.
> > >
> > > We are distinguishing "wl_relative_pointer exists" from
> > > "pointer-lock is active", right?
> > >
> > > A question is: how does the client know when pointer-lock is
> > > active? I think we'd need something like
> > > wl_relative_pointer.enter/leave.
> > >
> > I'm still a fan of destroying relative pointers when not in use. It's a
> > bit more protocol churn, but it makes it clear when they are/are not
> > active. Maybe enter/leave will work, but I'm not convinced it's the
> > way forward. I'll have to give that a bit more thought before I could
> > a real solid argument though.
> Yes, of course. It's more a matter of how does the client know to
> destroy the wl_relative_pointer, when the compositor chooses to
> deactivate the pointer-lock. If there is a leave event for that, good.
> I think with this, it could actually make sense what you said above: no
> normal wl_pointer events as long as any wl_relative_pointer exists.
> This would strongly push app devs to destroy the wl_relative_pointer at
> the right time, I believe.
> And then we need a backup plan for clients that do not destroy it, for
> protocol definition completeness.
If the server sends a "leave" it becomes inert and the server assumes the
client will destroy it. If the client doesn't then you leak an object but
there's no real harm.
> > > > I can imagine that the second use case may very well be implemented
> > > > with confinement and relative pointer events and as such relative
> > > > pointer events would need support both non-accelerated and
> > > > modes.
> > >
> > > IMHO that raises the question: should be have separate interfaces,
> > > or at least separate requests for asking raw relative motion vs.
> > > desktop-like relative (i.e. accelerated) motion?
> > >
> > > Or should wl_relative_pointer maybe deliver both at the same time?
> > >
> > > Maybe have separate requests for creating the wl_relative_pointer...
> > >
> > Both of those seem reasonable to me.
> I would suggest we go with a separate request with "raw" input data.
> This way we can easily add it later. I suspect it may also need
> libinput additions. We don't even have a good definition of "raw" yet,
> either, AFAIK. Going with just the normal (accelerated) motion for now
> should be easier to try out.
fine with me
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the wayland-devel