Hi Simon, On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 9:22 AM Olivier Fourdan <ofour...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 9:05 AM Simon Ser <cont...@emersion.fr> wrote: >> >> On Monday, April 29, 2019 9:51 AM, Olivier Fourdan <ofour...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> > > On Sunday, April 28, 2019 12:04 PM, Olivier Fourdan >> > > <ofour...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > IMHO, it would better, semantically, to keep `xdg-output.done` and >> > clarify (in xdg-output) that the `xdg-output.done` event is sent once >> > all properties on wl_output _and_ xdg-output are set, xdg-output >> > being a superset of wl_output. This way we would keep things apart >> > but also still guarantee atomicity. >> >> What if we have another protocol that extends wl_output? How can you >> atomically send xdg_output state and the other protocol's state? >> >> This solution doesn't scale. > > > Humm, that's a good point. > >> > Besides, that would be easier on the existing clients that would >> > (still) expect the `xdg-output.done` event and compositors that >> > wouldn't need to emit the event based on the protocol version used by >> > the client. >> >> That's a good point. I still think it's worth it to properly fix this >> issue. > > > Then we have no choice but bumping the protocol version to differentiate > those client which expect the xdg-output.done from those who won't.
I wonder if https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/issues/680 is related (works with GNOME but not with KDE). Anyway, you convinced me, I agree removing `xdg-output.done` would help and make things simpler for clients. Reviewed-by: Olivier Fourdan <ofour...@redhat.com> Cheers, Olivier _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel