[PATCH weston 1/3] Introduce pointer lock interface
dev at mgautier.fr
Wed Sep 24 01:46:18 PDT 2014
Well, I'll try to be more concise.
In fact, there are two unrelated parts in my proposition :
# First part : getting relative events
Passing through a wl_pointer that may not exists to get relative events
seems a bit odd to me.
My main idea is to have a new object (I've call wl_relative) *not
related* to wl_pointer that send to client the relative events.
If a client want relative events, it open this object and receive events
from it. Simply.
No need to look the wl_pointer or anything else.
The wl_pointer still continue to work as usual. There is strictly no
change in that part.
The only relation we may find between wl_relative and wl_pointer is that
relative events are sent only when the wl_surface as the focus.
In a first approximation, we can say that the wl_relative focus is the
same of wl_pointer focus and that relative events are send only when
wl_pointer.motion are send (ie, between wl_pointer.enter and
But a special compositor could follow its own rules.
# Second part : pointer lock
The pointer lock should not be related to relative events. This is two
To acquire a pointer lock, a client just ask it.
It can be by the request wl_pointer.get_lock(lock_type) (I've called
it set_mode in my past mail but get_lock is a better name)
This request return a wl_callback used by the compositor to end the lock
(either cause it refuse it or the lock normally ends)
The lock can be released by the client using wl_pointer.release_lock()
The lock_type can be :
- lock : Do not move the pointer (What was in the Jonas' proposal)
- confine : Confine the pointer into the surface.
During a lock, all events are still send as usual :
- Relative events from wl_relative are not impacted by the wl_pointer lock
- wl_pointer.motion are still send in confine mode
- wl_pointer button, axis events are still sent
# Remarks and QA:
The main difference compared to Jonas' proposal is that I totally
separate the relative events problem from the pointer lock problem. (I
maybe should have start by this :) )
In Jonas' proposal you have to acquire the pointer lock to get relative
events. In my proposition we can get one without having the other.
I don't especially care if this is my proposal or Jonas' ones that is
kept. But separate the two part in unrelated problems seems better to me.
I've you give me times, I will send you a patch of wayland.xml to
describe more precisely what I'm thinking about.
It could be interesting that Jonas update its protocol xml with remarks
from others to be sure that we compare up to date proposal and not miss
- Why not let the application open the device ?
=> For security reasons. We probably don't want that any applications
can open input devices and read from them all events.
=> Scalability. Devices are not always mouses. Applications may not
know how to read them.
In my past job, I've made a android application
that connect to the STB in Wifi and discuss directly with the compositor
to send input events. There was no device to read from except a socket.
- What my proposal can do that Jonas' one can't do ?
=> The only thing I can find is the case where a seat doesn't have a
wl_pointer but have relative events. For all the rest, Jonas' proposal
seems to work.
=> My proposition seems simpler to me. Less dependencies between
elements, less questions about who create and release objects. (But
It's maybe also cause it's mine :) )
Le 23/09/2014 23:42, Jason Ekstrand a écrit :
> Hi Matthieu,
> Could you please provide more explanation on what use-cases you are
> considering and why the current proposal fails to accomplish them?
> All I was able to get from your post was the example of a TV remote.
> It's all well and good to completely disagree with the proposed
> approach, but without a good reason as to why it doesn't work, it's
> kind of moot.
> It's also worth noting the scope of the proposal. The primary
> objective here is to provide a mechanism to take a device that could
> be providing relative events but which the compositor has turned into
> a pointer and get the relative events out of it. It's not intended to
> be a generic system for getting relative events.
> On that note, if you want to get a generic relative motion events,
> can't you just open the device and read them? Sure we could cobble
> together a specification for how to read a bunch of buttons and
> relative events and then create a cursor from them. I'm pretty sure
> it exists in the form of the USB HID spec. How does reimplementing
> that in Wayland help us? There was, at one point, a proposal for
> gamepads, but nothing has happened there in a while.
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Matthieu Gautier <dev at mgautier.fr
> <mailto:dev at mgautier.fr>> wrote:
> I'm pretty new into wayland and the discussion is relatively long,
> so I may have missed arguments/constraints.
> However I would like to share my point of view.
> It seems to me that we are taking the problem the wrong way.
> Relative motions exist as soon as there is a device generating
> them. wl_pointer is just a particular interpretation of those events.
> In fact, we may have a system where we have relative motion events
> but no wl_pointer. Think about a smart tv with a remote control
> with accelerator/gyroscope detectors.
> This remote may behave as a mouse, generating relative motion
> events. But the main interface of the TV may have no pointer. The
> interface should been a set of icons and user move between them
> with the remote buttons.
> If you're just pressing buttons to move between icons, then "pointer"
> is probably the wrong way to look at it anyway. It's more "arrow
> keys" than a pointer.
Exactly, there is no pointer in this example. But there are relative
events applications may want to have.
> In the same way, we may want that special applications still have
> access to motion events:
> - A web browser that will display itself the pointer (or activate
> wl_pointer in the compositor)
> - A video game
> - Any application that want make gesture recognition.
> In this context, wl_pointer is a special use-case of a shell and
> having a mouse device doesn't imply having a pointer.
> Relative motions should be always available (if there is a device)
> and wl_pointer should be created on top of relative motions.
> Trying to reduce the wl_pointer behavior to have the raw events
> seems to me the contrary of what we have to do.
> What I propose is :
> - Having a way to get "relative input object" (lets call it
> wl_relative for now) from wl_seat.
> - Having a way to get a wl_pointer from the wl_seat at it is
> already the case.
> Relative events a sent to client if it is active (It is to the
> compositor to decide this, as usual) whatever there is a
> wl_pointer or not.
> The pointer lock interface will become some kind of
> "deactivate/configure wl_pointer".
> # Functionally :
> A combination of :
> - Hide the cursor (already available with wl_pointer.set_cursor)
> - Don't not update wl_pointer position from relative events.
> - Confine the pointer position into my wl_surface.
> - Set wl_pointer at this position.
> - A fps game will hide the cursor and deactivate update of
> wl_pointer position.
> - A strategy game will just confine the pointer.
> - A application with a 3D view that what to rotate it when user
> drag the mouse will just deactivate update of pointer position
> between button_down and button_up.
> - A application that just want relative motion events do nothing.
> At any time, relative motion events are sent to client through the
> wl_relative object. Regardless of the state of wl_pointer.
> It is up to the client to handle events from wl_pointer or
> wl_relative depending of which kind of information it wants.
> # Interface :
> The wl_pointer could gain two (four?) more requests :
> - set_mode(mode, callback)
> - reset_mode()
> ( - has_mode
> - get_mode )
> The default mode is the mode we have for now (no special constraints)
> A client can change the mode of a wl_pointer. It gets a callback.
> When compositor stops the special mode (or refuse it) the done
> event of the callback is sent.
> When the client has finished with special mode, it sends the
> reset_mode request.
> The wl_pointer.leave event may or not be sent to client when the
> done event is sent (The pointer may still being inside the
> wl_surface when special mode ends)
> However a wl_pointer.leave event implies a done event. (We cannot
> have a special mode if we don't have the pointer focus)
> On the interface to get the wl_relative object from seat, it depends :
> Is there a possibility to have several cursor on one seat ?
> One cursor per seat. If there are multiple physical mice, then you
> get an aggregate of all the mice. You can, however, have multiple
> seats in which case you will get multiple pointers.
> (Two mouses moving two cursors)
> Does wl_seat.get_cursor return always a proxy to the same object ?
> Yes, all pointers created from the same seat are identical.
> - If there is only one cursor, we can simply add a get_relative
> request to wl_seat.
> - If not, we should get a object from the other.
> . Ideally, get the wl_pointer from wl_relative. (and wl_relative
> from wl_seat)
> . Practically, cause of the existent, get wl_relative from
> Matthieu Gautier.
> wayland-devel mailing list
> wayland-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> <mailto:wayland-devel at lists.freedesktop.org>
> wayland-devel mailing list
> wayland-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the wayland-devel