[PATCH weston] libweston: Position layers in an absolute way

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 11:26:52 +0200
Quentin Glidic <sardemff7+wayland at sardemff7.net> wrote:

> On 05/07/2016 11:09, Giulio Camuffo wrote:
> > 2016-07-05 10:15 GMT+02:00 Quentin Glidic <sardemff7+wayland at sardemff7.net>:  
> >> From: Quentin Glidic <sardemff7+git at sardemff7.net>
> >>
> >> Currently, layers’ order depends on the module loading order.
> >> With this patch, modules can safely add their own layer at the correct
> >> place.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Quentin Glidic <sardemff7+git at sardemff7.net>
> >> ---
> >>  desktop-shell/input-panel.c         |  9 +++--
> >>  desktop-shell/shell.c               | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> >>  fullscreen-shell/fullscreen-shell.c |  3 +-
> >>  ivi-shell/input-panel-ivi.c         |  9 +++--
> >>  ivi-shell/ivi-layout.c              |  3 +-
> >>  ivi-shell/ivi-shell.c               |  3 +-
> >>  libweston/compositor.c              | 34 +++++++++++++---
> >>  libweston/compositor.h              | 29 +++++++++++++-
> >>  tests/weston-test.c                 |  2 +-
> >>  9 files changed, 126 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> +/* Higher value means higher in the stack.
> >> + * Only one module should use the NORMAL value to make sure clients surfaces
> >> + * are stacked properly.
> >> + * Other values will stack layers from top to bottom in the order of addition,
> >> + * and you should use plugir registry to make surfaces not overlap where
> >> + * relevant. */
> >> +enum weston_layer_position {
> >> +       WESTON_LAYER_POSITION_HIDDEN     = 0x0000, /* special value to remove
> >> +                                                   * a layer from the list */
> >> +       WESTON_LAYER_POSITION_BACKGROUND = 0x0200,
> >> +       WESTON_LAYER_POSITION_NORMAL     = 0x0400,
> >> +       WESTON_LAYER_POSITION_UI         = 0x0600,
> >> +       WESTON_LAYER_POSITION_FULLSCREEN = 0x0700,
> >> +       WESTON_LAYER_POSITION_TOP_UI     = 0x0800,
> >> +       WESTON_LAYER_POSITION_LOCK       = 0x1000,
> >> +       WESTON_LAYER_POSITION_CURSOR     = 0x1200,
> >> +       WESTON_LAYER_POSITION_FADE       = 0x1201,  
> >
> > In orbital i have 10 layers, so these would not be enough. Besides,
> > having to modify libweston everytime i need one more would be a
> > hassle. I understand the problem, but i think it is a weston problem,
> > rather than libweston, and should be something on top, imho.
> >  
> 
> There is room between these values, specifically so you can add your 
> own. No need to modify Weston every time. These are just standard values 
> that plugins can use and developers are aware of, so you can make your 
> own values meaningful wrt these ones.
> 
> These values should be shared between the majority of compositors, so if 
> you have more to add that are meaningful outside of orbital, please share.
> 
> It cannot be a weston problem, IMO, because I really want 
> libweston-based compositors to share as much modules as possible, and 
> these modules could add their layers.
> 
> Cheers,

Hi,

just my personal opinion: using layer priority values as the key
for ordering the layers automatically sounds good to me, so the
idea is Acked-by me.

You just need to improve the documentation to get the idea
clearly across. ;-)


Thanks,
pq
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/attachments/20160707/aa2f021d/attachment-0001.sig>