On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 10:42:22 -0500 (EST) Olivier Fourdan <ofour...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Pekka, > > ----- Original Message ----- > > here is an update on the Weston side: > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2017-January/032712.html > > > > The related Weston patches series has shrunk from 24 to 3 patches as > > lots of them have been merged. The stuff about _XWAYLAND_ALLOW_COMMITS > > is still pending. > > > > Given the development on Weston side, would you demand implementing > > NET_WM_SYNC_REQUEST support in Weston before deciding whether to merge > > _XWAYLAND_ALLOW_COMMITS support in Xwayland, or is the rationale in the > > remaining Weston patches enough to justify it already? > > I meant to reply your previous email but didn't quite finish it, > sorry... > > What I meant to say there is NET_WM_SYNC and _XWAYLAND_ALLOW_COMMITS > are two different things and I don't think you can reach the same > goals using NET_WM_SYNC_REQUEST. > > The goal of NET_WM_SYNC is to make sure the window manager is not > flooding the client with configure requests while the user resizes > the window. Without NET_WM_SYNC, you can easily see the client > window/repaint lagging behind when resizing even with an X11 > compositor - That's quite different from what _XWAYLAND_ALLOW_COMMITS > is meant for. > > Not all apps use NET_WM_SYNC, actually few do (mostly gtk and qt > based apps) when considering the large number of X11 apps available, > so you cannot rely on NET_WM_SYNC being available, whereas having > _XWAYLAND_ALLOW_COMMITS in Xwayland make it available for all X11 > clients running on Wayland with a compositor taking advantage of it. > > So, *IMHO* _XWAYLAND_ALLOW_COMMITS should not depend on weston > implementing NET_WM_SYNC_REQUEST. Sorry if I caused some confusion. Hi Olivier, I'm glad we agree. :-) In my current Weston implementation, ALLOW_COMMITS is only used for the initial map. I suppose it could also be used to guarantee flicker-free decorations: just before sending Configure disable commits, and enable commits after the decorations have been "drawn" in the new size. Do you think that might be a good idea to implement in the future? Then there is the question of whether NET_WM_SYNC should automatically disable/enable commits in Xwayland or do we just implement that in XWM via _XWAYLAND_ALLOW_COMMITS, but that's completely orthogonal. Thanks, pq
pgpBby9pUeAe1.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel