Hi, On 7 December 2015 at 18:12, Bill Spitzak <spit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Again I don't understand why you think it is important to include all this > confusing text. > > If I am not mistaken, *some* compositors less than version 5 do *NOT* act in > the old way. > > Therefore no client can rely on this behaviour even if the compositor is > less than verison 5. And people writing compositors I think should be > encouraged to write the newest version api. So this text is irrelevant for > everybody. > > I really would just delete all this text. You want to require clients to > monitor the capability events and destroy/create the wl_pointer in response, > so just say that. Stop giving them ways to get around what you want. > > I'm not sure if it is possible, but you might want to change creation of > wl_pointer before the capability is received into an error. I would suspect > a lot of clients create the wl_seat and then immediately create the > wl_pointer (and wl_keyboard, etc) without waiting for anything. This is > technically wrong, and probably a good indicator of a client that will also > fail to destroy/recreate the wl_pointer correctly.
It's an entirely valid concern, and I don't want people to do it, but documenting historical mistakes is useful as a signpost to people of what not to do. And it's now much less wishy-washy, and much more 'this was a bad idea; do not do this'. So: Reviewed-by: Daniel Stone <dani...@collabora.com> Thanks everyone for the contributions. Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
