941390 - (KillSharedSurface) Replace SharedSurface by TextureClient (evolving TextureClient as needed)

Status: REOPENED

(Core :: Graphics, defect)

Description

[Benoit Jacob [:bjacob] (mostly away)]

SharedSurface is perfectly fine; but we plan to evolve TextureClient to be our One True surface abstraction, and it should be possible to make its scope general enough to encompass SharedSurface.

Comment 1

[Sotaro Ikeda [:sotaro]]

Set to 1.3? based on Bug 950079.

Comment 2

[u480271]

I'm not working on this. If someone wants to revive it, feel free to reopen.

Comment 3

[Nicolas Silva [:nical]]

I'll leave it open with no assignee, then. This is something I think we need to figure out eventually.
Right now there's some footgun-prone hackery in the glue between SharedSurface and TextureClient that is worth removing.

Comment 4

[Milan Sreckovic [:milan] (needinfo for best results)]

(In reply to Nicolas Silva [:nical] from comment #3)
> I'll leave it open with no assignee, then. This is something I think we need
> to figure out eventually.
> Right now there's some footgun-prone hackery in the glue between
> SharedSurface and TextureClient that is worth removing.

Can we spin that piece of it in a separate bug?

Comment 5

[Nicolas Silva [:nical]]

(In reply to Milan Sreckovic [:milan] from comment #4)
> (In reply to Nicolas Silva [:nical] from comment #3)
> > I'll leave it open with no assignee, then. This is something I think we need
> > to figure out eventually.
> > Right now there's some footgun-prone hackery in the glue between
> > SharedSurface and TextureClient that is worth removing.
> 
> Can we spin that piece of it in a separate bug?

If someone can think of a simple way yes, but it's not clear to me how to untangle that without making significant changes, so might as well just merge the two abstractions (which are pretty close nowadays).

Comment 6

[Kelsey Gilbert [:jgilbert]]

(In reply to Nicolas Silva [:nical] from comment #5)
> (In reply to Milan Sreckovic [:milan] from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Nicolas Silva [:nical] from comment #3)
> > > I'll leave it open with no assignee, then. This is something I think we need
> > > to figure out eventually.
> > > Right now there's some footgun-prone hackery in the glue between
> > > SharedSurface and TextureClient that is worth removing.
> > 
> > Can we spin that piece of it in a separate bug?
> 
> If someone can think of a simple way yes, but it's not clear to me how to
> untangle that without making significant changes, so might as well just
> merge the two abstractions (which are pretty close nowadays).

Given the trickiness here I think that when we do change it, we should be aggressive about it.