Code review comment for lp:~raof/mir/input-methods-can-specify-foreign-parents
Revision history for this message
| Chris Halse Rogers (raof) wrote | # |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
73416ba
(Get the code!)
> 692 + // TODO: Fish out a policy verification object that enforces the
> various invariants
> 693 + // in the surface spec requirements (eg: regular surface
> has no parent,
> 694 + // dialog may have a parent, gloss must have a parent).
>
> That's the WindowManager policy as already "fished out" of AbstractShell.
> FrontendShell is only responsible for mapping "frontend" concepts to "shell"
> concepts.
Hm. I think either I'm misunderstanding the current state of the code, or you're misunderstanding my intent.
My understanding is that we want to provide the shell authors with surfaces that have some guaranteed properties - regular surfaces have no parent, gloss surfaces definitely have a parent, tooltip surfaces are not fullscreen, etc. Likewise we claim in the client library that various surface types must have certain properties.
My understanding is that the WindowManager policy is expected to be provided *by* the shell; it's therefore too late for us to guarantee that shells only see well-formed requests.
We used to provide these guarantees by making malformed requests inexpressible in the client API, but that's no longer the case. Is there anywhere else where we guarantee these invariants to the shell?