Peter Hutterer wrote: [...] > It'd be interesting to see how much work it is to have this API > _replace_ the current API. Gives us more exposure and better testing. > Note that I have some more API changes planned (not coded) that simplify > the init process, they should all go in in one go. > Another change that goes with that is the ability to easily split up > devices into multiple X devices. This would make it easier to handle > devices that have both MT events and normal events - they would simply > end up being two devices, one normal one, one DID. > > Henrik, Rafi - do you think this would work for the MT devices we've > seen so far?
>From a device perspective, absolutely. In the kernel, a single device can have any combinations of BTN, ABS, and MT events. Keys are getting there as well, but are still normally separated by force. In other words, trusting the kernel to make a logical split of events which fits the X framework is not very fruitful. Going forward, I wonder why we split input into separate devices at all. We have different types, and different behavior based on capabilities, but input is becoming so intermixed that the notion of separated devices looses its meaning. Why not just put all input events into the same bucket, and let clients specify what event types to listen to? Cheers, Henrik _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
