I thought the purpose of this was so that compositors could pass to the backend DRM configuration data supplied by the clients, therefore the api that clients use to pass this information seemed pretty important.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Daniel Stone <dan...@fooishbar.org> wrote: > On Monday, 8 February 2016, Bill Spitzak <spit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 5 Feb 2016 21:03:20 +0100 >>> Benoit Gschwind <gschw...@gnu-log.net> wrote: >>> > I will add my opinion as called for opinions. First I made a quick >>> > brainstorm following previous proposals about solutions available. I >>> see >>> > 3 mains choice: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> thanks for looking into this. >>> >>> > 1. a structure that user fill and pass to the back end; >>> > 2. an opaque structure that the user fill through helper function; >>> > 3. a free list of key/value pair. >>> >> >> The Wayland message api only allows sending of a small set of primitive >> data types. So if you have a "structure" that is more complex than one of >> those data types, the only way to send it is through multiple arguments to >> (possibly multiple) Wayland requests. Therefore it seems like it is limited >> to solutions 2 and 3, right? >> > > ... you do know that libweston is a C library and not a Wayland protocol, > right? > > These are the sorts of things that make it difficult (trending towards > impossible) to take your review seriously. >
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
