Surface order issues where surfaces comes from different processes ?
zeeshan.ali at pelagicore.com
Mon Feb 20 10:19:45 EST 2017
On 20 February 2017 at 15:23, Gunnar Andersson <gandersson at genivi.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 13:07 +0000, MATTHIAS BLOCH wrote:
> C1000-PUBLIC-MAILING-LIST ;-)
>> An action was to send to the LM mailing list.
>> We didn't conclude anything since perhaps LM guys have an idea.
> I have to agree with Matthias on this one: The first step was to seek out
> advice from layer mgmt team. Or to put it another way, I also agree that we
> said that it needs redesign, but the question is still _how_ isn't it?
Wasn't it so that we want one process to draw over the other process'
layers? If not, I probably misunderstood the issue and I apologise.
It'd be nice to get feedback from LM team anyways. :)
> By the way, I saw some email that suggested that for the AGL system they are
> also considering similar issues, not exactly the same issue, but the issue
> that in current design (of GDP also) you need to somehow know and define
> surface IDs beforehand? I don't have all the details clear but it is a
> topic we have had several times before in GENIVI.
Yeah, I think that's an issue. It's unrelated though.
More information about the genivi-ivi-layer-management