On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 08:29:34AM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote: > 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. :-)
I can give you the branch if you're really interested but it didn't get further than a lot of search/replace of inputInfo.pointer and inputInfo.keyboard. When I started sorting out how a single master device may be grabbed sync on the keyboard but async on the pointer with different replaying order or sync/async swapping I gave up. Branch date's back to march 2009, so it's a bit out of date. Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
