[PATCH wayland-protocols v2 2/2] Introduce pointer locking and confinement protocol

Jonas Ã…dahl jadahl at gmail.com
Mon Jan 11 22:48:40 PST 2016

On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 04:38:51PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
> On 4 January 2016 at 04:21, Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at who-t.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 04:54:14PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >> I almost wonder if we couldn't make peoples' lives easier by merging
> >> locking and confinement into a single interface, adding a bool for
> >> whether or not to allow pointer movement (confine) or not (lock). Or
> >> perhaps, rather than a bool, we could add an allow-null
> >> wp_relative_pointer argument instead: gives you lock if non-null, or
> >> confine if null.
> >
> > you get a much less expressive API, less checking, etc. for a fairly minimal
> > benefit. Furthermore, any extension to *either/or* the lock/confine
> > interface would need to handle the appropriate NULL cases for the other
> > interface. Right now we can easily add a locking-specific request without
> > messing up the logic of the confinement, and vice versa.
> >
> > I don't think merging the two is a good long-term strategy.
> I'm not deeply wedded to this (hence 'almost wonder'), but just as
> long as we're aware of the downside that it does make compositor
> implementations significantly more complex - see the infrastructure
> required to support both interfaces whilst mostly treating them as the
> same interface inside the Weston patch. So, if you're both against it,
> then shrug, fair enough.
> >> > +      If the compositor decides to unlock the pointer the unlocked event is
> >> > +      sent. The wp_locked_pointer object is at this point defunct and should be
> >> > +      destroyed.
> >>
> >> Egads. :( This is a bit hostile - what's the harm in allowing latent
> >> objects to remain? To my mind, once a previously-locked/confined
> >> wp_{locked,confined}_pointer object is unlocked, it is for all intents
> >> and purposes the same as one which just hasn't yet been activated.
> >
> > what happens whe the wl_pointer goes away on the wl_seat? does the client
> > expect the wp_locked_pointer object to hang around and reattach to the new
> > pointer should it come back on the seat?
> > see the mess with documenting the capabilities and lifetime of wl_pointer
> > objects, forcing this object to be dead avoids all that for very little
> > cost.
> Eh? Destroying the object after a single use doesn't make the problem
> go away, because you still have to specify what happens to a
> wp_locked_pointer on which the lock has never triggered, when the
> pointer goes away. Arguably it just makes clients _more_ likely to get
> that case wrong.
> I don't see what making the object single-use buys us. Surely the
> common usecase is to react to destruction by immediately recreating a
> new object with the exact same properties. And it introduces a really
> annoying corner case where input arrives before you have the time to
> recreate (say you have a very temporal exit), in which you receive
> normal rather than locked pointer events. Given that it makes clients
> more complex, introduces an unfortunate race condition, doesn't avoid
> the case that is its stated reason to exist, and also makes protocol
> tracing a bit more difficult, why do it?

FWIW, I'd be fine making the objects outlive an unlock. It'd need
changes to set_region etc, but thats trivial. The pointer seat
capability going away I would make it do the same as wl_pointer i.e.
it'll become useless, won't ever re-lock and should be destroyed.


> This is my one remaining objection; the rest looks peachy.
> Cheers,
> Daniel

More information about the wayland-devel mailing list