Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: Going Indepth With Wayland Sub-Surfaces

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by giucam View Post
    Not yet, but the xdg_shell protocol will have that.
    Cool! Yes,now i got it

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
    For X or Y reasons that have nothing to do with rendering , an application might like to know when is being minimized.
    I'd say that application is badly designed, as it violates the separation of concerns: the only relevant things I can think of for wanting to know if the applications are minimized or not, are window management concerns, and those should be worked within the compositor. But again, this is handled as some other user pointed out by the xdg_shell extension, or could be easily hinted in a standard fashion, as a lot of window management related states are hinted in the X world nowadays.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    I'd say that application is badly designed, as it violates the separation of concerns: the only relevant things I can think of for wanting to know if the applications are minimized or not, are window management concerns, and those should be worked within the compositor. But again, this is handled as some other user pointed out by the xdg_shell extension, or could be easily hinted in a standard fashion, as a lot of window management related states are hinted in the X world nowadays.
    "Separation of concerns " is precisely why the protocol and the compositor should not assume what the application is supposed to do when is minimized . The only concern of these is how to render the minimization , is not? .

    You are talking like if Wayland is supposed to implement some general guidelines to the rest of the applications , but in reality , most applications should not care if wayland exist at all .

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
    "Separation of concerns " is precisely why the protocol and the compositor should not assume what the application is supposed to do when is minimized . The only concern of these is how to render the minimization , is not? .
    Of course. That's why I'm talking about hinting, and not about forcing. A hint is that: you tell the application "you have been minimized, if you need that information to decide something, you've got it, do whatever you like with it". The compositor decides how to minimize, but not what happens inside the application once it is minimized.

    You are talking like if Wayland is supposed to implement some general guidelines to the rest of the applications , but in reality , most applications should not care if wayland exist at all .
    Applications should care about what they are running on. You can abstract it, but eventually, some layer will deal with it. And yes, Wayland is supposed to implement some general guidelines: how you communicate with the compositor or display server.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrugiero View Post
    I'd say that application is badly designed, as it violates the separation of concerns: the only relevant things I can think of for wanting to know if the applications are minimized or not, are window management concerns, and those should be worked within the compositor. But again, this is handled as some other user pointed out by the xdg_shell extension, or could be easily hinted in a standard fashion, as a lot of window management related states are hinted in the X world nowadays.
    When Skype is minimized it displays the camera in a little widget on the corner of the screen.

    Media players like Rhythmbox could display notifications when a new song is played only if the player is minimized.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Sarmiento View Post
    "Separation of concerns " is precisely why the protocol and the compositor should not assume what the application is supposed to do when is minimized . The only concern of these is how to render the minimization , is not?
    Minimization is a window management task, therefore it is up to the window manager to decide how minimization should be handled. Only the compositor knows whether minimized apps needs to show thumbnails, and thus whether they need to continue rendering. Only the compositor knows the shape, size, position, of such thumbnails. Only the compositor knows whether they should be real-time or show a static image. Only the compositor knows whether windows will be included in an expose or alt-tab switcher, and whether those will be real-time or static images.

    The app only needs to know whether it needs to render or not. Everything else is up to the compositor.

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    When Skype is minimized it displays the camera in a little widget on the corner of the screen.
    Things like that are exactly why people get so pissed off with skype. It is not up to the app to decide those sorts of things. If the compositor wants to provide that sort of thing, then it can provide it. But apps should not be fighting the user to prevent them from minimizing or closing their apps. That sort of thing can be provided by a standard API and leave it up to the compositor to decide exactly how it should be represented, if at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Media players like Rhythmbox could display notifications when a new song is played only if the player is minimized.
    Again, app notifications should be handled by a notification API. There are many situations besides minimization where an app might not be visible and the compositor would want to show notifications. There is no way for the app to know exactly how it is being represented, so it shouldn't try to guess.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackCat View Post
    Things like that are exactly why people get so pissed off with skype. It is not up to the app to decide those sorts of things. If the compositor wants to provide that sort of thing, then it can provide it. But apps should not be fighting the user to prevent them from minimizing or closing their apps. That sort of thing can be provided by a standard API and leave it up to the compositor to decide exactly how it should be represented, if at all.
    I think it is a great feature!
    (As long as it can be turned off)

    Not sure how this could be done by the compositor...

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,329

    Default

    An IM client might show you as "away" when minimized, a RSS reader might optimize by not checking as often when minimized, and so on. It doesn't have to be rendering-related.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    An IM client might show you as "away" when minimized, a RSS reader might optimize by not checking as often when minimized, and so on. It doesn't have to be rendering-related.
    Yeah, just as web browsers disable rendering and animation on inactive tabs when using window.requestAnimationFrame().

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBlackCat View Post
    Minimization is a window management task, therefore it is up to the window manager to decide how minimization should be handled. Only the compositor knows whether minimized apps needs to show thumbnails, and thus whether they need to continue rendering. Only the compositor knows the shape, size, position, of such thumbnails. Only the compositor knows whether they should be real-time or show a static image. Only the compositor knows whether windows will be included in an expose or alt-tab switcher, and whether those will be real-time or static images.

    The app only needs to know whether it needs to render or not. Everything else is up to the compositor.
    Is Wayland utterly trying to gnome-ize the linux desktop then? Neither the protocol nor the compositor should make assumptions about what minimization means ,is or should be for applications in general . The job of compositor is to 'paint' the application and nothing else .

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    When Skype is minimized it displays the camera in a little widget on the corner of the screen.
    Things like that are exactly why people get so pissed off with skype. It is not up to the app to decide those sorts of things. If the compositor wants to provide that sort of thing, then it can provide it. But apps should not be fighting the user to prevent them from minimizing or closing their apps. That sort of thing can be provided by a standard API and leave it up to the compositor to decide exactly how it should be represented, if at all.
    That is none of your business nor Wayland's business nor the compositor's business . "Separation of concerns " See?. That's a choice made by the developer, it does not matters if you like to or not. And what do you meant by "standard API"?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •