Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Going Indepth With Wayland Sub-Surfaces

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Going Indepth With Wayland Sub-Surfaces

    Phoronix: Going Indepth With Wayland Sub-Surfaces

    A few days back I wrote about sub-surfaces coming to Wayland's protocol after being a Weston-only feature for several months. For those curious about this Wayland feature, developer behind the code has written about this new feature at length...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTUxODA

  • #2
    A very nice write-up that I encourage people to read

    Comment


    • #3
      Great

      That's great and all that... but it still don't support window minimize

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by uid313 View Post
        That's great and all that... but it still don't support window minimize
        Do anyone still needs the explanation on that bit, or can we just skip that silliness?

        Comment


        • #5
          IIUC sub-surfaces might be able to help remote desktop scenarios. Once clipping is supported, sub-surfaces could be used for 'viewports', where the content is more or less static.

          For example a text editor could put the text area on a sub-surface, and then scrolling would become much smoother and less cpu-intensive since instead of passing big frame delta 60 times per second only the relative position of the internal window would have to be transmitted.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
            Do anyone still needs the explanation on that bit, or can we just skip that silliness?
            It's not nessessary, we explaned it to him many time, he don't seems to understand

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by uid313 View Post
              That's great and all that... but it still don't support window minimize
              Wow, that's bad enough . Is that true?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                Wow, that's bad enough . Is that true?
                The wl_shell interface doesn't give ways to minimize.

                It is about to be replaced by xdg_shell (written by Gnome devs), which has ways to minimize.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                  That's great and all that... but it still don't support window minimize
                  Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                  Wow, that's bad enough . Is that true?
                  I don't get it... We all know that minimizing is a relict from the past! - the Gnome desktop has long depreciated this heretic feature. Nobody complains about it missing today...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Nuc!eoN View Post
                    I don't get it... We all know that minimizing is a relict from the past! - the Gnome desktop has long depreciated this heretic feature. Nobody complains about it missing today...
                    LOL!!!!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well, it seems it still needs explaining.

                      Does Wayland include a specific protocol for minimizing? Nope.
                      Does it need to? Neither. The compositor should take care of that.
                      But WHYYYYYYYYYY???! :'(
                      Because the policy for minimizing is usually dependent on what the compositor's makers want it to look like, i.e., compositor implementation dependent. Thus, it doesn't really make sense to include it in the core protocol, if it is to be bypassed by the compositors. Remember, window management was always handled by the window managers.

                      But why aren't there compositors capable of that? That's not true, AFAIK. IIRC, there is already KWin, and Martin says it is usable in a day to day basis, so I bet it has the ability to minimize windows. AFAIK, E18 is able to. Just Weston, thought as a test bed, doesn't include something as trivial. Weston shouldn't be used in production, as it is not its aim, although some people want to, and I guess those ones will end up writing a plugin to enable it to minimize windows with Weston.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                        Well, it seems it still needs explaining.

                        Does Wayland include a specific protocol for minimizing? Nope.
                        Does it need to? Neither. The compositor should take care of that.
                        But WHYYYYYYYYYY???! :'(
                        Because the policy for minimizing is usually dependent on what the compositor's makers want it to look like, i.e., compositor implementation dependent. Thus, it doesn't really make sense to include it in the core protocol, if it is to be bypassed by the compositors. Remember, window management was always handled by the window managers.

                        But why aren't there compositors capable of that? That's not true, AFAIK. IIRC, there is already KWin, and Martin says it is usable in a day to day basis, so I bet it has the ability to minimize windows. AFAIK, E18 is able to. Just Weston, thought as a test bed, doesn't include something as trivial. Weston shouldn't be used in production, as it is not its aim, although some people want to, and I guess those ones will end up writing a plugin to enable it to minimize windows with Weston.
                        That means applications will not able to figure out their current state if the minimization is compositor specific . Is that right?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                          That means applications will not able to figure out their current state if the minimization is compositor specific . Is that right?
                          AFAIK, they will use hints, which already exist for X applications. Refer to ICCCM and EHWM. I think Wayland adheres to those as a whole.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
                            That means applications will not able to figure out their current state if the minimization is compositor specific . Is that right?
                            Kind of, but the point is - "minimised" isn't a state, it's a user operation that may be implemented in any number of ways (or not implemented at all). The application shouldn't care about whether it's minimised - it should care about whether it should be rendering or not, and depending on how a given desktop implements minimising, the answer to that question will vary (e.g should it stop rendering, should it keep rendering, should it render to a smaller thumbnail surface?)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
                              Kind of, but the point is - "minimised" isn't a state, it's a user operation that may be implemented in any number of ways (or not implemented at all). The application shouldn't care about whether it's minimised - it should care about whether it should be rendering or not, and depending on how a given desktop implements minimising, the answer to that question will vary (e.g should it stop rendering, should it keep rendering, should it render to a smaller thumbnail surface?)
                              Uh, the application should NOT care about the desktop neither the particular compositor . From a user point of view, minimizing only means "get out of my sight, quickly ". Neither the protocol nor the compositor should tell the application how it must respond to that kind of demands from the user. Maybe i misunderstood, but you seems to imply that the concept of minimizing depends on each compositor. But that's crazy . So i hope that is not what you meant

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X