[PATCH weston v3 7/8] Define the screensaver inhibitor client interface

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:59:36 -0700
Bryce Harrington <bryce at osg.samsung.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 06:02:09PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Thu,  7 Apr 2016 16:44:22 -0700
> > Bryce Harrington <bryce at osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > Hook up the API defined in wayland-protocols to allow client screensaver
> > > inhibition requests.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Bryce Harrington <bryce at osg.samsung.com>
> > > ---
> > > v2: Update for protocol rename
> > > 
> > >  Makefile.am          |  9 +++++++--
> > >  clients/simple-shm.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > >  2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)  
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I would really wish we didn't add any more stuff into simple-shm, or
> > any of the simple-* clients, unless it is essential to them.
> > 
> > Something like the subsurfaces demo would be more suitable, that would
> > allow you to test the inhibi... hmm, wait, no, all subsurfaces there
> > are still inside the parent. I think you need a new test client that
> > creates a subsurface outside of the main surface, so you can test the
> > inhibitor inheritance.  
> 
> Given the subsurfaces stuff seems to still be a source of disagreement,
> and evidently is something I totally am not grokking, I don't want to
> get into implementing subsurface support.  The typical client won't be
> using subsurfaces, so a simpler demo would be more relevant for them.
> For clients that *do* use subsurfaces, well it sounds like they could
> have quite a diverse range of behavioral needs regarding inhibition, so
> making a good subsurface demo sounds like it could get rather involved.

Right.

> I do understand your point about wanting to avoid shoehorning more
> features into the simple-* clients; they're already kind of a hodge
> podge.  So I'll look at creating a new client like simple-shm that is
> boiled down to just showing off the inhibit feature with a single top
> level surface.

Cool.

I do not think they are that hodge-podge. If you want, I can list and
justify all features in each of them, I believe.


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/20160609/f399e520/attachment.sig>