On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Daniel van Vugt
<daniel.van.v...@canonical.com> wrote:
+1 on having a discussion. I wondered the same when I touched those
APIs a few months ago.
I don't think the intermediate InputEvent is useful enough to keep.
Conceivably any app/toolkit developer could want to correlate other
types of events with input just as much as correlating input with
input. So I think the commonality is "Event" and not "InputEvent".
Mir Event "1.0" did not have any "input event" structure. And X
doesn't either: http://tronche.com/gui/x/xlib/events/structures.html
So people can very happily use (and have done for years) an API that
has no intermediate InputEvent class.
Functionally X does have an intermediate class; the XAnyEvent member of
that union.
That doesn't invalidate your point, though.
It would be nice to not have to duplicate accessors for common event
fields. mir_touch_event_timestamp, mir_keyboard_event_timestamp,
mir_pointer_event_timestamp, mir_touch_event_input_device_id,
mir_keyboard_event_input_device_id, mir_pointer_event_input_device_id,
… and so on.
I guess I've argued myself into supporting the
mir_foo_event_input_event() branch...
--
Mir-devel mailing list
Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
