On 01/25/2011 12:11 PM, Chase Douglas wrote: > On 01/25/2011 04:58 AM, Daniel Stone wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:35:37AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:25:25PM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote: >>>> We currently have a mechanism for clients selecting for unowned events >>>> to receive motion and finish events (through the PendingFinish flag). >>>> However, how does a non-owner know that a TouchBegin event isn't owned >>>> yet? Should we mutate TouchBegin events to TouchMotionUnowned and set a >>>> PendingBegin flag? >>> >>> why not set the owner flag on the TouchBegin event? >> >> Actually, I was just going to send a TouchOwnership event straight after >> TouchBegin, to make life simpler for clients. So, TouchBegin means >> 'you will get events for this touch at some stage', and TouchOwnership >> means 'you're now the owner, go nuts', always. > > Ok, it was this part that I didn't understand when I made my changes to > the server. > > However, I'm not sure I like where this is going. It means that clients > will receive TouchBegin and TouchEnd events for touches they never > became owners of, even if they didn't want to receive unowned events. I > would prefer a protocol where most clients, who will not want unowned > events, do not receive any events until they are the owner. This will > prevent unnecessary wakeups of processes during gesture recognition, for > example. > > I have some ideas on how to accomplish this, but I've run out of time > before my next flight...
Just to finish this thread, I realized that we could just say that clients who do not request unowned events will assume to have ownership upon receiving a TouchBegin event. This would fall in line with what Daniel proposed. Is this the direction we're going? Thanks, -- Chase _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
