Add a simple `ApplicationHandler` trait since winit is moving towards
trait based API. Add `run_app` group of APIs to accept `&mut impl
ApplicationHandler` deprecating the old `run` APIs.
Part-of: https://github.com/rust-windowing/winit/issues/3432
Replace the `CustomCursorBuilder` with the `CustomCursorSource` and
perform the loading of the cursor via the
`EventLoop::create_custom_cursor` instead of passing it to the builder
itself.
This follows the `EventLoop::create_window` API.
Creating window when event loop is not running generally doesn't work,
since a bunch of events and sync OS requests can't be processed. This
is also an issue on e.g. Android, since window can't be created outside
event loop easily.
Thus deprecate the window creation when event loop is not running,
as well as other resource creation to running event loop.
Given that all the examples use the bad pattern of creating the window
when event loop is not running and also most example existence is
questionable, since they show single thing and the majority of their
code is window/event loop initialization, they wore merged into
a single example 'window.rs' example that showcases very simple
application using winit.
Fixes#3399.
This was supposed to be rolled out with the rwh v0.6 update, but it
was left behind for some reason. I've added this type back.
Signed-off-by: John Nunley <dev@notgull.net>
Inner panics could make it hard to trouble shoot the issues and for some
users it's not desirable.
The inner panics were left only when they are used to `assert!` during
development.
This reverts commit 9f91bc413fe20618bd7090829832bb074aab15c3 which
reverted the original patch which was merged without a proper review.
Fixes: #500.
Inner panics could make it hard to trouble shoot the issues and for some
users ints not desirable.
The inner panics were left only when they are used to `assert!` during
development.
There's no need to force the static on the users, given that internally
some backends were not using static in the first place.
Co-authored-by: daxpedda <daxpedda@gmail.com>
Lifetimes don't work nicely when dealing with multithreaded environments
in the current design of the existing winit's event handling model, so
remove it in favor of `InnerSizeWriter` fences passed to client, so they
could try to update the size.
Fixes#1387.
The idea that redraw events are dispatched with a specific ordering
that makes it possible to specifically report when we have finished
dispatching redraw events isn't portable and the way in which we
dispatched RedrawEventsCleared was inconsistent across backends.
More generally speaking, there is no inherent relationship between
redrawing and event loop iterations. An event loop may wake up at any
frequency depending on what sources of input events are being listened
to but redrawing is generally throttled and in some way synchronized
with the display frequency.
Similarly there's no inherent relationship between a single event loop
iteration and the dispatching of any specific kind of "main" event.
An event loop wakes up when there are events to read (e.g. input
events or responses from a display server / compositor) and goes back
to waiting when there's nothing else to read.
There isn't really a special kind of "main" event that is dispatched
in order with respect to other events.
What we can do more portably is emit an event when the event loop
is about to block and wait for new events.
In practice this is very similar to how MainEventsCleared was
implemented except it wasn't the very last event previously since
redraw events could be dispatched afterwards.
The main backend where we don't strictly know when we're going to
wait for events is Web (since the real event loop is internal to
the browser). For now we emulate AboutToWait on Web similar to how
MainEventsCleared was dispatched.
In practice most applications almost certainly shouldn't care about
AboutToWait because the frequency of event loop iterations is
essentially arbitrary and usually irrelevant.
Considering the possibility of re-running an event loop via run_ondemand
then it's more correct to say that the loop is about to exit without
assuming it's going to be destroyed.
