Code review comment for lp:~vanvugt/mir/parenting-server-api

> I'm also wondering about type morphing, which design wants us to support...
> What if a surface morphs from type A to type B and only type B requires
> parenting?
>
> In that case you'd have to reject a simple set_type() request and add more
> client functions that do an atomic set_type_B(surface, newparent). So there's
> the scalability issue still, and you do gain atomicity, but I'm not sure that
> atomicity is more important than the scalability advantage.

Yes the API that has been agreed upon with tvoss would require additional functions to handle this case. I don't think this is the correct venue if you have concerns about this approach. Talking to Thomas directly might be more effective.