Hi Yong
> I thought you'd say that. :)
> Ok, I get it - I did think of those things as well although coming to
> a different conclusion. However, just consider this...
>
> > [...]
>
> I agree with your reasons above, but this is a setter associated with
> a struct member, and the struct member i
Hi Olivier,
I thought you'd say that. :)
Ok, I get it - I did think of those things as well although coming to
a different conclusion. However, just consider this...
> On Aug 11, 2016, at 11:32 PM, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
>
> Hi Yong,
>
> Thanks for your follow-up.
>
> I don;t necessarily agree
Hi Yong,
Thanks for your follow-up.
I don;t necessarily agree with your all of comments though, see below.
> > @@ -164,6 +165,15 @@ wl_global_create(struct wl_display *display,
> > void
> > wl_global_destroy(struct wl_global *global);
> >
> > +typedef bool (*wl_display_filter_global_func_t)(con
Hi Olivier,
On Aug 8, 2016, at 1:10 AM, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
>
> Add a new API to let compositor decide whether or not a wl_global
> should be advertised to the clients via wl_registry_bind() or
> display_get_registry()
>
> By using its own filter, the compositor can decide which wl_global wo
Hi Yong,
> Despite the R-b's you received, and I hate to encourage you to do
> a v4, I would like to suggest two things that are important:
> - naming
> - more comments/doc
>
> I'll send another email soon with some suggestions to save you time.
Sure, I would need some more details and a precise
Hi Olivier,
> On Aug 8, 2016, at 1:10 AM, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
>
> Add a new API to let compositor decide whether or not a wl_global
> should be advertised to the clients via wl_registry_bind() or
> display_get_registry()
>
> By using its own filter, the compositor can decide which wl_global
2016-08-08 11:07 GMT+02:00 Olivier Fourdan :
> Hi Giulio,
>
> On 8 August 2016 at 10:53, Giulio Camuffo wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> this looks like a nice way to implement restricted interfaces... i
>> just wonder, would we need to revoke allowed interfaces? How would
>> this approach allow that?
>
> Not
Hi Giulio,
On 8 August 2016 at 10:53, Giulio Camuffo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this looks like a nice way to implement restricted interfaces... i
> just wonder, would we need to revoke allowed interfaces? How would
> this approach allow that?
Not sure what you mean, but if an interface was allowed, revok
Hi,
this looks like a nice way to implement restricted interfaces... i
just wonder, would we need to revoke allowed interfaces? How would
this approach allow that?
Also, this still doesn't prevent a client from binding an interface if
it knows the name and id. Do we care?
2016-08-08 10:10 GMT+02:
Add a new API to let compositor decide whether or not a wl_global
should be advertised to the clients via wl_registry_bind() or
display_get_registry()
By using its own filter, the compositor can decide which wl_global would
be listed to clients.
Compositors can use this mechanism to hide their ow
10 matches
Mail list logo
