Code review comment for lp:~gerboland/unity-api/surfaceSizerCallback

Revision history for this message
MichaƂ Sawicz (saviq) wrote :

> > I wonder if instead we should just pass availableGeometry, with Mir being
> > responsible for policy, should we involve the shell like this?
> I dislike this idea, as effectively we'd need to educate Mir about the entire
> QML scene: which areas are off-limits for a non-fullscreen surfaces, what to
> do for surfaces of different types, stages, etc. Defining a vocabulary for
> that would be a nightmare IMO. And if Mir makes a decision that shell doesn't
> like, shell will immediately impose its will anyway - so where's the gain?

I'm thinking about, for example, initial placement based on previous runs and such. Maybe Mir could (optionally?) give up a preferred position and the shell would come back with the same or changed if not possible in current setup or something. Anyway, later. The gain? More logic shared between Mir shells.

> Policy I hope to define in Mir relate more to clients expectations, I want to
> ensure that client surfaces behave in a consistent way across mir server
> implementations. Shells should treat client surfaces in ways that they expect,
> that parent/child relationship is obeyed, focus handing is correct, input is
> delivered to the correct surface, siblings can attach to eachother/their
> parent and stay there, things like that.

What you said above applies here just as well - shell, if not well behaved - can impose its own will.

« Back to merge proposal