On 10/13/2015 09:53 AM, Jasper St. Pierre wrote:
The goal of focus-stealing prevention isn't to prevent hostile clients
from stealing the focus. It's to allow friendly clients to upgrade the
experience if they can track the originating event that originally
opened a window. For instance, if I launch GIMP but then go back to
typing in a terminal, after GIMP launches, it shouldn't steal the
focus, because I've interacted with another window since then.
We've tried turning off focus-stealing prevention for all new windows
without a timestamp, and it provided a very unfun experience. Lots of
applications either don't have an originating user action when they
pop up a window, or they don't track it thoroughly.
Perhaps GUI applications have gotten substantially better in the 6
years ago since we tried it -- I'd be willing to run the experiment
again. But I don't expect much changing.
Yes but this is still not answering my question.
Can you describe a design where no-event is treated *differently* than
an unknown or disallowed event in the _present request?
You are describing how they would be treated identically. I suspect that
will always happen, but the idea that they can be treated differently is
being used as an excuse to not add the special no-event serial of zero
and reduce the number of _present messages from 2 to 1.
_______________________________________________
wayland-devel mailing list
wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
