Peter Hutterer wrote: > On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 01:10:24AM -0400, Rafi Rubin wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 07/02/10 05:59, Henrik Rydberg wrote: >>> 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? >> I agree, I don't see the need to artificially separate keyboards and >> pointers. > > say hello to my friend the core protocol. approximately 100% of all > applications rely on it (rounded to the nearest percent) :) > who needs enemies if you got friends like this. > > fwiw, about a year ago I had a private branch that gets rid of the > pointer/keyboard distinction and provide a unified master device that's both > pointer and keyboard. that didn't turn out well, grab synchronization is a > nightmare.
I will take your word for it, but it does sound like there is not much of a resistance against the idea. :-) Cheers, Henrik _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
