A relative {x,y} would make sense and be much simpler than the currently
over-engineered "attach to a rectangle". In Xmir and toolkits we tend to
see empty rectangles being used:
MirRectangle placement = {dx, dy, 0, 0};
already. It should have been a simple relative {x,y} from the beginning...
On 01/09/16 19:02, Alan Griffiths wrote:
When clients toolkits provide hints to place child surfaces using the
existing functions:
mir_surface_spec_attach_to_foreign_parent();
mir_connection_create_spec_for_tip();
mir_connection_create_spec_for_menu(); or the proposed,
mir_surface_spec_set_placement()
the toolkit wants to know where the child surface actually ends up in
order to render appropriately.
We currently have a policy not to provide any location information to
clients, so I want to be sure that I don't propose anything controversial.
In discussion with Chris he suggests that sending a
PlacementRelativeToParent{dx, dy} message is the right solution.
Doing this opens up an opportunity for clients to:
1. probe the display boundaries using dummy placement requests. (The
point is to provide the location before they render.)
2. parent (and place) everything they do on a fullscreen surface
(which they can conceal from the user). It does limit them to
surface types that can be parented.
Thoughts and suggestions for the right way forward please.
--
Mir-devel mailing list
Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
