[RFC XI 2.1 - inputproto] Various fixes in response to Peter Hutterer's review

Daniel Stone daniel at fooishbar.org
Wed Dec 1 07:48:34 PST 2010


On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 04:07:20PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:52:39PM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
> >  A touch event is not delivered according to the device hierarchy. All touch
> > -events are sent only through their originating slave devices.
> > +events are sent only through their originating slave devices. However,
> > +dependent touch devices will only emit touch events if they are attached to a
> > +master device. This is due to the touch delivery being dependent on the
> > +location of a cursor.
> it is still not clear why you don't want to route touch events through the
> master device (other than that leaving it in the SD alone is easier to
> implement). is there a list of pros and cons for both approaches?
> especially in the case of touch-based pointer emulation, when the master
> will send events caused by the slave device. so some events have to be
> routed either way.

The best reason I can think of is that requiring clients to track
hierachy events and (de)select events manually for every single device
is lame, as well as inherently racy.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20101201/4ac01cd8/attachment.pgp>

More information about the xorg-devel mailing list