Re: Standardizing _METACITY_UPDATE_COUNTER

[Lubos Lunak <l lunak suse cz>]

On Tuesday 24 of February 2004 05:13, gtg990h mail gatech edu wrote:
> Okay, let me try to specify this somewhat more formally. I understand,
> after Soeren Sandmann's last message, why it makes sense to let the client
> increment the counter by more than one for each resize step. I also think I
> understand Owen Taylor's concern about being able to keep track of the
> client's location in the update stream. Further, making the protocol
> two-way might make it easier to double-buffer, depending on how
> double-buffering is done.

 Ok.

>
> I tried to follow the formatting of the wm-spec, to make things easier to
> understand:
>
> _NET_SYNC_REQUEST (client message)
>     window = top-level window being resized
>     message_type = _NET_SYNC_REQUEST
>     format = 32
>     data.l[0] = low-bits of counter value
>     data.l[1] = high-bits of counter value
>
> _NET_SYNC_ACKNOWLEDGE (client message)
>     window = top-level window being resized
>     message_type = _NET_SYNC_ACKNOWLEDGE
>     format = 32
>     data.l[0] = low-bits of counter value
>     data.l[1] = high-bits of counter value
>
> _NET_WM_SYNC_SUPPORT (client window property)
>     Integer specifying level of support for synchronization.
>     - 0: No support
>     - 1: Synchronization during resize

 I guess this one could be saved by making _NET_SYNC_REQUEST a protocol as 
specified by ICCCM 4.2.8 (i.e. listed in WM_PROTOCOL, etc. ).

-- 
Lubos Lunak
KDE developer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SuSE CR, s.r.o.  e-mail: l lunak suse cz , l lunak kde org
Drahobejlova 27  tel: +420 2 9654 2373
190 00 Praha 9   fax: +420 2 9654 2374
Czech Republic   http://www.suse.cz/