Best I can recall, that feature is incomplete. But also the vast
majority of apps and toolkits don't care that it's still incomplete.
What we want is for it to be an actual region (union of rectangles) and
a client API to set the input region of a surface. So for example, a
non-rectangular surface may specify its shape and clicks that are
outside of that shape (but still inside the surface rectangle) pass
through to the surface below.
On 04/06/16 13:38, Alan Griffiths wrote:
On 03/06/16 21:17, Daniel d'Andrada wrote:
Hi,
I was working under the assumption that, in mir::scene::Surface,
input_bounds() was the bounding box of the input region [1]. But it
was always returning the full surface size no matter what.
Then, checking implementation, I saw that it simply returns the
surface size. Is that the correct and intended definition of
input_bounds (there's no documentation on it, so its definition
follows from the implementation itself)? Wouldn't it be more useful
and accurate if it were the bounding box I thought it was? Or is it
just a bad by-product of having scene::Surface inherit from
input::Surface, making input_bounds() a redundant property of the former.
- Daniel
[1] by the way, why there's no input_region() getter in
scene::Surface? qtmir would sure make good use of it. Now it has to
rely on shell::WindowManager::modify_surface to get this information.
Yes, this is broken. (In several ways.)
Last time I discussed it with duflu I came away with the opinion that
fixing it wasn't trivial as there are competing, incompatible
assumptions around the code.
--
Mir-devel mailing list
Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
