On Tuesday, November 22, 2016, Daniel Stone <dan...@fooishbar.org> wrote:
> Hey, > > On 21 November 2016 at 23:13, Peter Hutterer <peter.hutte...@who-t.net > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:42:36PM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote: > >> Concretely though, reusing BTN_* codes where possible would make it > >> easier for clients to transition between the two. > > > > I disagree here. The kernel only has BTN_STYLUS and BTN_STYLUS2, after > that > > we overlap with DOUBLETAP range and later buttons that are completely > > different (e.g. BTN_GEAR_DOWN). I think this would only make it worse. > > This protocol is still unstable, every client needs updates once we mark > it > > stable anyway, making the enums *values* mean something is > counterproductive > > IMO. > > Shrug, once in an enum they're totally arbitrary values (so which > BTN_* they overlap doesn't make a difference), and it does make it a > little harder to screw it up, as well as easier to stay compatible I see pros and cons for both suggestions. I was into Peter's idea of generic numbering since it is easier to implement and offers some flexibility for client to decide how to translate those events. However, I am kinda convinced by Daniel's point now. If the BTN_ has a preferred default action/feature, kernel should report that information to userland. Client should translate that default setting accordingly. That's just my 2 cents. It's still your call, Peter ;-). Cheers, Ping between multiple versions. But, your call. > > Cheers, > Daniel >
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
