On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 02:09:16PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 04:00:33PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: > > Hi Jonas, > > > > On 17 November 2015 at 10:09, Jonas Ådahl <jad...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > + <event name="relative_motion"> > > > + <description summary="relative pointer motion"> > > > + [...] > > > + > > > + Relative motions are not coupled to wl_pointer.motion events, and > > > can be > > > + sent in combination with such events, but also independently. > > > There may > > > + also be scenarious where wl_pointer.motion is sent, but there is > > > no > > > + relative motion. The order of an absolute and relative motion > > > event > > > + originating from the same physical motion is not guaranteed. > > > + > > > + If the client needs button events or focus state, it can receive > > > them > > > + from a wl_pointer object of the same seat that the > > > wp_relative_pointer > > > + object is associated with. > > > + </description> > > > + > > > + <arg name="utime_hi" type="uint" > > > + summary="high 32 bits of a 64 bit timestamp with microsecond > > > granularity"/> > > > + <arg name="utime_lo" type="uint" > > > + summary="low 32 bits of a 64 bit timestamp with microsecond > > > granularity"/> > > > > My only concern with this is that, as Peter said, it could be > > potentially difficult to correlate the two event streams > > (wl_relative_pointer::motion vs. wl_pointer::button) with different > > time units, unless we specify rounding. > > This should be solved if we send them in the same wl_pointer.frame, right?
Yes. I think we should just wait until the wayland release including .frame and just add then a blurb about that here somewhere. Jonas > > Cheers, > Peter _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
