On 2018-04-16 2:57 PM, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > I'd still like a bit more clarification about what to expect of this > string. What I'm trying to avoid is one compositor sending "eDP-1" while > another sends "Built-in Display". For example, the first is suitable for > command line interfaces (e.g. movie-player --fullscreen-on HDMI-2), but > the second is suitable for GUI's (e.g. a widget for selecting what > monitor to play a movie on). If it can be either one, I don't see its > usefulness in a generic client.
I'm explicitly not trying to avoid that. To me it's acceptable that one compositor uses "eDP-1" and another uses "Built-in Display". > I'm suspecting, given what you've written in other E-mails in this > thread that you intend to use this for the "HDMI-1" style names, but at > the same time I've seen the word "human readable" been used which more > commonly refers to "Built-in Display" or "ASUS 24"", which might not > even be unique (there might be two 24 inch ASUS monitors connected). HDMI-1 is human readable to the sort of humans that use my compositor. Each compositor has a different target audience and should cater their naming conventions accordingly. > I don't want to end up with a situation where we get wildly different > results depending on what compositor is the one sending the value. Why is this important? > What I'm assuming is a major reason for keeping things relatively vague > is to make sure that it's not specifically connector data, as that may > not be available for centain types of compositors. Yes, that is a major reason. This also isn't some vague theoretical compositor either, my own compositor has situations where connector names don't make sense. -- Drew DeVault _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel