We have a few constraints. First off, not all enums are closed. Some are intentionally open, like xdg_shell.state. So we definitely need a distinction between a closed enum and an open enum. I'm not familiar enough with Rust to be able to apply something to that.
Second, I think we need to make a big effort to map out how the XML converts to a wire format. For the most part, it's obvious, except for the n -> sun hack we apply when we don't have an interface name. We should probably specify that somewhere. There's also a compatibility issue that has been brought up, but I never understood that one. Somebody else would be able to talk about that better. On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Bryce Harrington <br...@osg.samsung.com> wrote: > The topic of adding better enum/bitfield support to the protocol has > come up a few[0] times[1] in the past, and again more recently[2]. We > also have several proposed patches in patchwork, but I'm not sure they > reflect consensus and none have Reviewed-by's on them yet [3,4,5,6,7]. > > From what I gather of the discussions, no one is really against this > feature conceptually, and impementationally the discussions appear to > have moved further afield. It feels like we're real close to having > something that could be landed, but it's not 100% clear to me what > exactly to land. Since it's a protocol types change I would prefer to > make sure it has a strong consensus before landing it. > > I know that several people have proposed patches on this - Bill, Nils > and Auke at least. Since there's a definite need for this, and since > agreement appears to be not far off, I would like to get this landed > this release. And ideally I'd like to get this landed early in the > release so we give plenty of time for testing. > > Since Auke's patchset proposalis the most recent, let's take that one as > the candidate for landing. Gentlemen, I'd like to ask you to review > these three patches [5,6,7] and either give your Reviewed-by's or flag > specific improvements needed. If you have a more conceptual > disagreement, and don't think the patchset is landable as implemented, > please raise that issue asap too. > > Bryce > > 0: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2015-April/021438.html > 1: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2015-June/023008.html > 2: > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2015-September/024249.html > > 3: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/47726/ > 4: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/47727/ > 5: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/53018/ > 6: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/53019/ > 7: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/53020/ > _______________________________________________ > wayland-devel mailing list > wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel -- Jasper _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
