pointer-constraints protocol: Removing lifetimes and persistency
sir at cmpwn.com
Thu May 17 12:16:19 UTC 2018
On 2018-05-17 1:14 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> That's fine, but we would have to look at the trade-off: they would
> have to drop functionality they use, in exchange for something which
> is worse for them.
I guess I don't fully understand why it's worse for them. It should be
functionally equivalent, albiet with a frame or two of the pointer being
locked or unlocked at the incorrect time, which really doesn't matter.
Implementing persistent locks using only oneshots is basically a single
line of code afaict.
More information about the wayland-devel