On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 09:05:48 -0700
Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Pekka Paalanen
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 09:55:49 -0400
> > "Jasper St. Pierre" wrote:
> >
> > > The idea here was that once upon a time, clients could rebind
> > > wl_display to a higher versi
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 09:55:49 -0400
> "Jasper St. Pierre" wrote:
>
> > The idea here was that once upon a time, clients could rebind wl_display
> > to a higher version, so we offered the ability to rebind it
> > here. However, this is parti
On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 09:55:49 -0400
"Jasper St. Pierre" wrote:
> The idea here was that once upon a time, clients could rebind wl_display
> to a higher version, so we offered the ability to rebind it
> here. However, this is particularly broken. The existing bind
> implementation actually still ha
On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:55:43 -0700
Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> I think this is ok. To my knowledge, no one is re-binding wl_display or
> even relying on that global being exposed.
I cannot imagine any reason to advertize wl_display as a global
either. Personally I have always thought the version of
I think this is ok. To my knowledge, no one is re-binding wl_display or
even relying on that global being exposed.
--Jason
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Jasper St. Pierre
wrote:
> The idea here was that once upon a time, clients could rebind wl_display
> to a higher version, so we offered th
The idea here was that once upon a time, clients could rebind wl_display
to a higher version, so we offered the ability to rebind it
here. However, this is particularly broken. The existing bind
implementation actually still hardcodes version numbers, and it leaks
previous resources, overwriting th
