cross-client surface references

[Jonas Ådahl]

On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 01:38:32PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 11:37:06 +0200
> Alexander Larsson <alexl at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 02:19 -0700, Jasper St. Pierre wrote:
> > > My issue with this is that you're tying two things together. You want
> > > access to """a surface""", and you think you can do this by having
> > > global cross-client objects and handles and such. I don't see a need
> > > for this. We can just add a new protocol that does what we want.
> > > 
> > 
> > I don't understand your disagreement. The protocol you sketch out is
> > exactly the same as the one Jonas sketched, only with different names
> > (sandboxed_surface instead of xdg_foreign), and it is very much a
> > global cross-client object handle.
> > 
> > I obviously don't want the actual XdgSurface object from the other
> > client, that would be insane. I just want a reference/handle/name for
> > it in my client so that i can pass it as an argument to
> > my_xdg_surface.set_parent()
> 
> It makes a huge difference whether you call
> xdg_surface.set_parent(xdg_surface *foreign) or
> sandboxed_surface.set_as_child(xdg_surface *owned).
> 
> I would probably object the whole concept of "xdg_surface *foreign"
> existing, because it implies that there are xdg_surfaces, and
> xdg_surfaces that are not really xdg_surfaces.

I don't think this idea has ever been really suggested. You might
confuse it with the talk of xdg_foreign, which is more or less what
Jasper suggested but with a different name.


jonas