On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 23:42:43 +0800 Jonas Ådahl <jad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 08:02:52AM -0700, Jasper St. Pierre wrote: > > I was not aware you could stack subsurfaces under a parent surface at > > all. Is this intended protocol behavior? The fact that you might be > > able to do that at all in Weston might be a bug. > > From wl_subsurface.place_above: > "... The reference surface must be one of the sibling surfaces, or the > parent surface." > > place_below is semantically equivalent except the stacking order. To me > this reads as it is explicitly allowed to stack a subsurface below a > parent surface. > > Now how that should work if the parent surface stacks itself above some > other surface is undefined I assume (whether the subsurface that is > stacked below its parent surface should be below or above the surface > the parent surface is stacked above, but I assume it subsurface tree > should be considered tightly coupled and be stacked together, if we'd > want to define that behaviour. Yeah, think of it as a tree. A surface with its immediate children is tightly coupled. No ancestor surface can get between a surface and its siblings+parent. Thanks, pq _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
