So we have mir::scene::Session with the following interface:
virtual void force_requests_to_complete() = 0;
virtual pid_t process_id() const = 0;
virtual void take_snapshot(SnapshotCallback const& snapshot_taken) = 0;
virtual std::shared_ptr<Surface> default_surface() const = 0;
virtual void set_lifecycle_state(MirLifecycleState state) = 0;
virtual void send_display_config(graphics::DisplayConfiguration const&)
= 0;
And mir::frontend::Session with:
virtual SurfaceId create_surface(scene::SurfaceCreationParameters
const& params) = 0;
virtual void destroy_surface(SurfaceId surface) = 0;
virtual std::shared_ptr<Surface> get_surface(SurfaceId surface) const =
0;
virtual std::string name() const = 0;
virtual void hide() = 0;
virtual void show() = 0;
This looks like it belongs to a SurfaceBundle class:
virtual std::string name() const = 0; <== This could be a different
name than the one for mir::frontend::Session
virtual void hide() = 0;
virtual void show() = 0;
virtual void take_snapshot(SnapshotCallback const& snapshot_taken) = 0;
virtual std::shared_ptr<Surface> default_surface() const = 0;
virtual void force_requests_to_complete() = 0;
These methods looks like they belong to a Surface factory but I can see
this being folded into the SurfaceBundle above:
virtual SurfaceId create_surface(scene::SurfaceCreationParameters
const& params) = 0;
virtual void destroy_surface(SurfaceId surface) = 0;
virtual std::shared_ptr<Surface> get_surface(SurfaceId surface) const =
0;
Not sure exactly how to categorize this - for me it would make more sense
if they belonged to frontend::Session
virtual void set_lifecycle_state(MirLifecycleState state) = 0;
virtual void send_display_config(graphics::DisplayConfiguration const&)
= 0;
virtual pid_t process_id() const = 0;
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Cemil Azizoglu <cemil.azizo...@canonical.com
> wrote:
> collection of surfaces owned by a MirConnection <<==== SurfaceSet?
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Alan Griffiths <
> alan.griffi...@canonical.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03/06/14 15:39, Gerry Boland wrote:
>> > Your reasons for why Session is a bad name would help the discussion.
>>
>> Because it is the collection of surfaces owned by a MirConnection - and
>> "session" doesn't convey *any* of that.
>>
>> > I've always thought that since Mir is a server, why not refer to clients
>> > as "Client" -
>>
>> Currently there is no representation of a "client" in Mir - nor is there
>> a simple way to identify one: We do try to identify the PID of the
>> process talking over a socket but there are limits to that.
>>
>> > I interpret Application as a client that creates a window
>> > for a user to interact with - but configuration tools & snapshotting
>> > tools may not create a window (i.e. for scripting)
>> > -G
>>
>> OK, so "Application" might not be a good name either.
>>
>> And, if you move onto the desktop, an application can have more than one
>> windows for a user to interact with.
>>
>> --
>> Mir-devel mailing list
>> Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cemil Azizoglu
> Mir Display Server - Team Lead
> Canonical USA
>
> --
> Mir-devel mailing list
> Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
>
>
--
Mir-devel mailing list
Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
