> The screensaver animation in macOS is reliant on the engine that drives it. > Recently that changed from an older engine to what we can only guess is a > newer one, but some of them still run in what is known as a newly named > legacyScreenSaver, yet ScreenSaverEngine still fits in there somehow. We > don't know how it works and we don't *need* to know.
Agreed. Currently, AFAICS, all third-party screen savers run under the legacyScreenSaver. But the name suggests that could change some day. > Screensaver engines run in a very controlled and limited environment. yes. > They need to be efficient. They need to treat user input differently. Actually, as of Catalina, there is NO user input to screen savers any more - at all :-( Which is the main reason for this whole effort of making a stand-alone app (in addition to the "crippled" screen saver). > They treat activation totally differently. When you start trying to force > such an engine to I don't and I can't force the engine itself. All I am doing is to include my subclass of ScreenSaverView in an app. > run in a normal app that can deactivate, hide, minimize, etc, you're throwing > it all kinds of things it isn't designed to handle. > > If you really want to run your screensaver animation in a non-screensaver > app, you'll need to control the animation, That is what I'm doing. I start my own timer, which periodically calls -animateOneFrame. I call -stopAnimation when the app is hidden, etc. Do you see any problems with that approach? Best regards, Gabriel _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
