https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88857
--- Comment #1 from Pekka Paalanen <[email protected]> --- Hmm. So the model I had in mind when writing the spec was the following: A sub-surface's state is all the state with the wl_surface that acts as a sub-surface. However, the sub-surfaces position and z-order are with the *parent*, not the sub-surface. The parent dictates its own state (contents), and a part of those contents is the position and z-order of its immediate sub-surfaces. So, when new parent state gets applied, as part of that also the sub-surfaces' positions and z-order get applied. This is all to keep the parent surface contents in sync with the sub-surface position and z-order. This should happen regardless of sync or desync mode of the sub-surface (or the parent, if the parent is itself a sub-surface). If a change in the parent's content requires a change in the sub-surface's *size*, then you have to do the synchronization dance with the code driving the sub wl_surface. The switch from synchronized to desynchronized sub-surface mode with pending position or z-order changes is sort of a corner case. I don't think carefully written clients should ever hit that, so what happens there is not very interesting IMO. Or am I overlooking something here, perhaps some sub-sub-surface scenario? Does this help? It is quite possible the current wording is a result from lazy thinking. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________ wayland-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-bugs
