On 19/10/15 08:47 AM, David FORT wrote:
> This is the second version. I have restored the ref counting of input devices,
> I think with the name weston_seat_init_pointer is not accurate, perhaps
> weston_seat_add_pointer_device would be better. I'm really wondering if it's
> the weston core that
Hello,
On 19 October 2015 at 15:47, David FORT wrote:
> This is the second version. I have restored the ref counting of input devices,
> I think with the name weston_seat_init_pointer is not accurate, perhaps
> weston_seat_add_pointer_device would be better. I'm really
This is the second version. I have restored the ref counting of input devices,
I think with the name weston_seat_init_pointer is not accurate, perhaps
weston_seat_add_pointer_device would be better. I'm really wondering if it's
the weston core that should do that refcounting, or if the input
Le 16/10/2015 11:53, David FORT a écrit :
> This patch implements inert objects for wl_keyboard, wl_pointer and wl_touch.
> The target case is when the server has just send a capability event about a
> disappearing object, and the client binds the corresponding object. We bind an
> inert object:
This patch implements inert objects for wl_keyboard, wl_pointer and wl_touch.
The target case is when the server has just send a capability event about a
disappearing object, and the client binds the corresponding object. We bind an
inert object: an object does nothing when it is requested. If the
Le 16/10/2015 11:53, David FORT a écrit :
> This patch implements inert objects for wl_keyboard, wl_pointer and wl_touch.
> The target case is when the server has just send a capability event about a
> disappearing object, and the client binds the corresponding object. We bind an
> inert object: