On Fri, 1 May 2009 15:40:50 +1000 Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 09:14:43AM +0200, Pierre Ossman wrote: > > > > In which case I'd consider the mechanism for adding new keyboards > > broken. If the idea is that the modifier mapping should be global, then > > adding a new keyboard with a different mapping should either a) change > > the global mapping, or b) overwrite the mapping on the new keyboard > > with the global one. > > The modifier mapping isn't global. it applies to the core keyboard which is > defined by the core protocol. All core calls only apply to this keyboard. > In the past this was't a problem since we only had one keyboard anyway. > Since the mapping is applied to every (core) keyboard, I'd consider it global in any practical sense, even though there are multiple places where it is stored. > > > > This is not a behaviour that has been with us for years. It was added > > for xserver 1.3. So apparently modifying just the active keyboard was > > not a major problem until then. > > The active keyboard never changed in the past. that's essentially the big > difference. > How was multiple keyboards handled internally before that? Perhaps there are some things there that can make sense even today for the VNC case. > > Is the VNC keyboard an extension device or does it replace inputInfo.keyboard? > It's an extension device. It is a core keyboard, but it only activates via SwitchCoreKeyboard(). Overwriting inputInfo.keyboard does not seem to be the correct thing to do when VNC is just a module attaching to an existing X server. Rgds -- Pierre Ossman OpenSource-based Thin Client Technology System Developer Telephone: +46-13-21 46 00 Cendio AB Web: http://www.cendio.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
