On 13/5/18 01:04 , Pekka Paalanen wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2018 10:10:10 +0200
Markus Ongyerth <w...@ongy.net> wrote:
For the reasons stated above, I think we would be better suited with an
interface defined as wayland extension. The downside is, that it has to be
proxied and implemented by the compositor, but I think the advantages outweigh
this.
Hi,
FYI, there is no need for a compositor to proxy or implement stuff
on behalf of libinput. The whole Wayland extension implementation
can be inside libinput, enabled with a single function call that
passes the server-side wl_display to libinput. This is how libEGL
implementations provide vendor-specific Wayland extensions while
keeping compositors completely agnostic of any details.
thanks, I didn't know about that. Having a wayland protocol would make
the whole thing wayland-specific though. Even though it's likely the 95%
use-case (outside of xorg obviously), that could be a limiting factor.
Cheers,
Peter
A small hurdle is what to do about libinput needing to call
libwayland-server in that case.
This is not a vote for or against using a Wayland extension for
specifically this case. I just wanted to point out that there is no
need to require any more than few lines of code in compositors to
opt in.
Personally, I don't think I would mind what the underlying protocol
to debug libinput is, as long as it is a simple matter for a
compositor to opt in, and read-only.
Thanks,
pq
_______________________________________________
wayland-devel mailing list
wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
