[PATCH inputproto multitouch 10/13] Touch grabs must be sync only

[Chase Douglas]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 06:07:29PM -0700, Chase Douglas wrote:
> On 08/23/2011 06:05 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 05:52:05PM -0700, Chase Douglas wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:47:04AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 05:37:39PM -0700, Chase Douglas wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 09:07:20AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> >>>>> The ownership passing is quite similar to sync grabs, so require touch grabs
> >>>>> to always be sync.
> >>>>
> >>>> I see two sides of this:
> >>>>
> >>>> Touch grabs are like pointer sync grabs because the owning client can keep other
> >>>> clients from receiving ownership or cleaning up state if it doesn't
> >>>> accept/reject.
> >>>>
> >>>> Touch grabs are like pointer async grabs because the client doesn't have to ask
> >>>> for each event individually. Events are asynchronously streamed to the client.
> >>>>
> >>>> Although it's not technically necessary, for protocol saneness it might make
> >>>> sense to add a third grab mode like "GrabModeOwner".
> >>>
> >>> how's the receival of ownership events decided then? still with the event
> >>> mask? should we have two modes? GrabModeTouch, GrabModeTouchOwner?
> >>
> >> Ownership events are still recevied via the event mask. What is the difference
> >> between GrabModeTouch and GrabModeTouchOwner in your mind?
> > 
> > there's a difference in normal touch event delivery depending whether the
> > ownership mask is set. Presumably the same rules are valid for touch event
> > delivery.
> > If we refer to the touch grab mode as GrabModeOwner this would IMO confuse
> > the ownership semantics if the actual rules are still dependent on the mask.
> > i.e., if I select with GrabModeOwner but TouchOwnership _not_ selected in
> > the event mask, I don't get ownership events. I think GrabModeTouch is just
> > fine to indicate the different sync/async semantics for touch events.
> 
> Ok, I see your point here.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Chase Douglas <chase.douglas at canonical.com>

Hmm... that did make any sense. Reviewed-by of your idea, but not of the patch.
End of day fatigue I guess.

Feel free to send me a new patch, or I'll create one with the change tomorrow if
I don't get one by then.

-- Chase