On 07/05/2010 02:06 PM, Chase Douglas wrote:
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 13:48 -0400, Rafi Rubin wrote:
On 07/05/2010 01:31 PM, Chase Douglas wrote:
On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 13:20 -0400, Rafi Rubin wrote:
On 07/05/2010 12:54 PM, Chase Douglas wrote:
The reason we can't pass DIDs as XI1 events is because an XI1 client
also doesn't see "floating" input devices that aren't attached to master
pointers. Only XI2 can see events from "floating" input devices.
Would vestigial valuators enable us to support XI1? Do we care about XI1?
Heh, I feel like we're returning to the conversation I had with Peter
about legacy client support. Essentially, you need XI2 for multitouch,
and the toolkit layer should use XI2 and translate to toolkit events as
required. XI1 just isn't extensible enough for multitouch.
Yup, I was thinking of what you said before with something watching all the MT
contacts moving around and producing conventional pointer events where they are
needed. It sounds like a great idea.
Yeah, the problem is that the X architecture really just does not allow
this to happen. The *aha* moment for me was when I was reading the
wikipedia article about X :). It quoted some early principles of X, one
of which was:
Provide mechanism rather than policy. In particular, place user
interface policy in the clients' hands.
Thus, it makes sense why X is architected as it is, but it also means we
have to solve issues like MT pointing above X itself.
However, it is yet another obstacle in the path of getting MT to the X desktop.
When you say toolkit, I hope you mean just some separate piece of code, and
not requiring gtk/qt to get conventional pointer events. I'd hate to loose
support for some real legacy apps (which I actually use for my work), where it
really is standard X events or nothing (programs written in straight xlib,
statically compiled, obscure toolkits, etc).
I think the real solution is getting the MT to pointer translation in
all the toolkits. If you build your programs right, they shouldn't be
statically linked to toolkits. A toolkit upgrade should just magically
make things work in older applications.
Now, if you've really written stuff in xlib, then you'll have to fix it
up manually. How many applications are really written in xlib though?
Enough.
I take it you aren't stuck with commercial tools. My lab uses various FPGA CAD
tools which are maintained conservatively, ie if they use a toolkit that does
eventually support MT->conventional, then I'd still expect it to take a couple
years (optimistically) to see the tk fixes percolate back to my desktop.
I also work with academic tools, which were started in the early/mid 90's that
are written in xlib. As yes its nice to examine route by tapping the wires to
follow a path. While I could rewrite that code, its a pretty simple user
interface that's actually well written. Switching to a tk would probably result
in larger and more complex code.
Oh, and um, well, I do actually select text in xterms with my fingers (and for a
while I also had paste working, but was convinced to remove 2 and 3 finger
clicks in favor of the MT protocol).
Rafi
_______________________________________________
[email protected]: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
