On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:45:46AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 11:26 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > > > + Servers supporting the X Input Extension version 2.0 or higher > > > + respect these barriers for any cursor on relative motion events. > > > + Absolute positioning devices do not obey these barriers as there's > > > + no benefit to target acquisition to do so. > > > > Is it worth making it a per-device barrier with the usual XIAllDevices, > > XIAllMasterDevices. Though it could be interesting handling a blocked master > > device on a non-blocked SD... > > I can just about imagine a use for being able to make barriers > per-master, it'd give you a cute way of confining people to different > outputs. Slaves don't seem that interesting (see Daniel's comment). > > Maybe just leave an XID slot in the request and note that values other > than None/XIAllDevices may mean something else in a later Fixes version?
would probably have to be a CARD16 num_devices + LISTofDEVICEID. I'd say enforce 0 as num_devices for now and return BadImplementation for anything non-zero. 0 is XIAllDevices anyway, so that doubles nicely. Cheers, Peter > > > +DestroyCursorBarrier > > > + > > > + barrier: BARRIER > > > + > > > + Destroys the named barrier. > > > + > > > + Errors: Barrier > > > > Do we need a new error here? BadValue would be sufficient, especially given > > that the request has no other value. > > Traditionally, a new type means a new error. Keith? > > - ajax > _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
