[RFC] MPX XInput Protocol extensions - big issues....
daniel at fooishbar.org
Mon Mar 3 15:49:14 PST 2008
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 06:30:02PM -0500, Jim Gettys wrote:
> How will we associate users with input devices? We'll certainly be
> dealing with input devices that can identify who is using them (e.g.
> Diamond Touch, remote devices, etc.)
Devices will have properties (not in the scope of Peter's MPX work), and
a user property can just be a unique ID. How people set and interpret
this is not our problem.
> How will that interact with Eamon's security framework?
It's a detail that doesn't impact on the design.
> I can see (at least) two possibilities:
> 1) events might include a field to identify who owns the device
> 2) we might include the identity of the owner of the device as part of
> the device on query, and identify whenever the owner of a device changes
> as an event.
Again, this happily reduces to just being a property.
> Should we introduce the user as a first class object?
No. At least, not in the scope of this work.
> How is this intended to work with ChangeWindowAccess?
daniels at psyence:~/x/xorg/xserver% grep -r ChangeWindowAccess **/*.[ch] 2>/dev/null
zsh: exit 2 grep -r ChangeWindowAccess **/*.[ch] 2> /dev/null
> Xi's valuators lack names, so you don't know whether the first valuator
> is "x", or "y", or "z", or "pressure", etc. Are we intending to fix
> this (major) oversight? If so, how?
I think the only way is just to document the current convention (x, y,
pressure). But this is a) pretty trivial to do and doesn't require
breaking the protocol, and b) not in the scope of the MPX work.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the xorg