WIP: Add wp_viewporter + example #1

Consolatis commented 2024年12月02日 21:29:43 +01:00

Second commit makes things work at least on labwc. I am not sure what is the expected behavior of compositors though with 3 different sizes:

• layershell size
• buffer size
• viewporter size

Which one of those should be used when calculating the anchor positions?

Second commit makes things work at least on labwc. I am not sure what is the expected behavior of compositors though with 3 different sizes: - layershell size - buffer size - viewporter size Which one of those should be used when calculating the anchor positions?

vyivel commented 2024年12月03日 06:18:27 +01:00

Viewport doesn't matter here, the only thing that does is the resulting surface size.

zwlr_layer_surface_v1.set_size is a part of the client-side surface configuration (https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/merge_requests/28#note_594954) and shouldn't be sent in response to a server configuration event.

Viewport doesn't matter here, the only thing that does is the resulting surface size. `zwlr_layer_surface_v1.set_size` is a part of the client-side surface configuration (https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/merge_requests/28#note_594954) and shouldn't be sent in response to a server configuration event.

Consolatis commented 2024年12月03日 18:51:24 +01:00

Viewport doesn't matter here, the only thing that does is the resulting surface size.

So when I get it right, wlroots should use the surface size (viewport ? viewport : buffer) rather than the desired layershell size for wlr_scene_layer_surface_v1_configure()? Then what is the point of the desired layershell size in the protocol?
It also states:

Sets the size of the surface in surface-local coordinates. The
compositor will display the surface centered with respect to its
anchors.

So to me it seems that wlroots is actually correct by using the layershell size and its the client that should set a new layershell size when changing the viewport or buffer size.

zwlr_layer_surface_v1.set_size is a part of the client-side surface configuration (https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/merge_requests/28#note_594954) and shouldn't be sent in response to a server configuration event.

Right, usually the client would have some code path outside of the configuration handler. The only reason that is being done in this PR is that it needs the requested width and height from the compositor so it was a quick way to test.

> Viewport doesn't matter here, the only thing that does is the resulting surface size. So when I get it right, wlroots should use the surface size (`viewport ? viewport : buffer`) rather than the desired layershell size for `wlr_scene_layer_surface_v1_configure()`? Then what is the point of the desired layershell size in the protocol? It also states: > Sets the size of the surface in surface-local coordinates. The > compositor will display the surface centered with respect to its > anchors. So to me it seems that wlroots is actually correct by using the layershell size and its the client that should set a new layershell size when changing the viewport or buffer size. > `zwlr_layer_surface_v1.set_size` is a part of the client-side surface configuration (https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/wayland/wayland-protocols/-/merge_requests/28#note_594954) and shouldn't be sent in response to a server configuration event. Right, usually the client would have some code path outside of the configuration handler. The only reason that is being done in this PR is that it needs the requested width and height from the compositor so it was a quick way to test.

This pull request is broken due to missing fork information.