PendingBegin flag on XI_TouchMotionUnowned events?

[Chase Douglas]

On 01/25/2011 12:11 PM, Chase Douglas wrote:
> On 01/25/2011 04:58 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:35:37AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:25:25PM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote:
>>>> We currently have a mechanism for clients selecting for unowned events
>>>> to receive motion and finish events (through the PendingFinish flag).
>>>> However, how does a non-owner know that a TouchBegin event isn't owned
>>>> yet? Should we mutate TouchBegin events to TouchMotionUnowned and set a
>>>> PendingBegin flag?
>>>
>>> why not set the owner flag on the TouchBegin event?
>>
>> Actually, I was just going to send a TouchOwnership event straight after
>> TouchBegin, to make life simpler for clients.  So, TouchBegin means
>> 'you will get events for this touch at some stage', and TouchOwnership
>> means 'you're now the owner, go nuts', always.
> 
> Ok, it was this part that I didn't understand when I made my changes to
> the server.
> 
> However, I'm not sure I like where this is going. It means that clients
> will receive TouchBegin and TouchEnd events for touches they never
> became owners of, even if they didn't want to receive unowned events. I
> would prefer a protocol where most clients, who will not want unowned
> events, do not receive any events until they are the owner. This will
> prevent unnecessary wakeups of processes during gesture recognition, for
> example.
> 
> I have some ideas on how to accomplish this, but I've run out of time
> before my next flight...

Just to finish this thread, I realized that we could just say that
clients who do not request unowned events will assume to have ownership
upon receiving a TouchBegin event. This would fall in line with what
Daniel proposed. Is this the direction we're going?

Thanks,

-- Chase