Hi,
2010/12/2 Kristian Høgsberg k...@bitplanet.net:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org wrote:
...
OK, so would something like this suit you:
* at selection time, clients can choose whether or not to receive
not-for-you events
* at any point during a
Hi,
On 2 December 2010 17:14, Chase Douglas chase.doug...@canonical.com wrote:
Hm, I'm not sure whether a drawing app would ever want to start drawing
for not-for-you events; if I went to do a pinch gesture on a drawing app
and it started sketching out a path, my immediate instinct would be
On 12/03/2010 07:53 AM, Denis Dzyubenko wrote:
On 1 December 2010 22:27, Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org wrote:
Chase and I talked quickly about hints for this: clients being able to
say 'please do not send me any more events from this touch stream', for
cases like a global gesture
On 12/03/2010 01:30 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 10:30:56AM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
On 12/01/2010 04:27 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:52:39PM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
A touch event is not delivered according to the device hierarchy. All
touch
On 12/03/2010 01:41 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 10:30:56AM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
A few points I'd like to make:
1. Most MT apps really just want gestures like pinch to zoom or pan to
scroll.
Where is this assumption coming from?
Whenever I get to play with
Hi,
For those of you not on IRC, Chase and I had a fairly long, if
meandering, discussion on all of this stuff: I said I'd summarise my
position and send it out to the list. I think we're fairly close to
agreeing though.
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:52:39PM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
A touch
On 12/01/2010 04:27 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:52:39PM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
A touch event is not delivered according to the device hierarchy. All touch
-events are sent only through their originating slave devices.
+events are sent only through their originating
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 10:30:56AM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
On 12/01/2010 04:27 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
The one thing that still concerns me here is promiscuous event sending:
where every client that has selected for the events receives them
whether it wants to or not. The reason
On 12/02/2010 10:46 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 10:30:56AM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
On 12/01/2010 04:27 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
The one thing that still concerns me here is promiscuous event sending:
where every client that has selected for the events receives them
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org wrote:
...
OK, so would something like this suit you:
* at selection time, clients can choose whether or not to receive
not-for-you events
* at any point during a touch stream, the current owner of a touch can
tell the
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 10:30:56AM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
On 12/01/2010 04:27 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:52:39PM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
A touch event is not delivered according to the device hierarchy. All
touch
-events are sent only through their
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 04:07:20PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:52:39PM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
A touch event is not delivered according to the device hierarchy. All touch
-events are sent only through their originating slave devices.
+events are sent
On 11/29/2010 11:03 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 04:07:24PM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
once you have the device in the hierarchy, it'll be hard _not_ to send
through the master device. we're sending single-touch events from
traditional touchscreens through the master
On 11/29/2010 02:08 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 09:27:53AM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
On 11/23/2010 01:07 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:52:39PM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
diff --git a/XI2proto.txt b/XI2proto.txt
index fd47643..6976683 100644
---
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 04:07:24PM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
On 11/29/2010 02:08 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 09:27:53AM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
On 11/23/2010 01:07 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:52:39PM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
If we
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 09:27:53AM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
On 11/23/2010 01:07 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:52:39PM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
diff --git a/XI2proto.txt b/XI2proto.txt
index fd47643..6976683 100644
--- a/XI2proto.txt
+++ b/XI2proto.txt
@@
On 11/23/2010 01:07 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:52:39PM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
diff --git a/XI2proto.txt b/XI2proto.txt
index fd47643..6976683 100644
--- a/XI2proto.txt
+++ b/XI2proto.txt
@@ -197,11 +197,29 @@ stage is optional. Within this document, the term
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:52:39PM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
---
Normally I'd just squash this in and make a v2 patch, but this is the most
important part of the MT work and it's easier to review separately :). I'll
squash later.
XI2.h|3 +++
XI2proto.txt | 39
---
Normally I'd just squash this in and make a v2 patch, but this is the most
important part of the MT work and it's easier to review separately :). I'll
squash later.
XI2.h|3 +++
XI2proto.txt | 39 ---
2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 7
19 matches
Mail list logo
