On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:49:15 +0100
adlo wrote:
> Any ideas about this?
Not really, no. Someone has to be the first, solve his own problems,
and then see if others can leverage the same solution. It is much
harder trying to design something generic when you don't have any
specifics.
Thanks,
pq
Any ideas about this?
> On 7 Jun 2016, at 16:04, adlo wrote:
>
> There are many other protocols that may require handles to windows. It may
> make sense for them to all use the same handle protocol. Of course, all of
> these different protocols would require different levels and types of
> pr
There are many other protocols that may require handles to windows. It may make
sense for them to all use the same handle protocol. Of course, all of these
different protocols would require different levels and types of privileges.
For example, a window switcher application would also need a pro
On Tue, 31 May 2016 14:49:38 +0100
adlo wrote:
> > On 20 May 2016, at 08:50, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> >
> > You would design a new protocol extension private to Weston, with which
> > you deliver to your client the handles for top-level windows as they
> > come and go.
> >
>
> This should pr
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 02:49:38PM +0100, adlo wrote:
>
> > On 20 May 2016, at 08:50, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> >
> > You would design a new protocol extension private to Weston, with which
> > you deliver to your client the handles for top-level windows as they
> > come and go.
> >
>
> This sho
> On 20 May 2016, at 08:50, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>
> You would design a new protocol extension private to Weston, with which
> you deliver to your client the handles for top-level windows as they
> come and go.
>
This should probably be a separate protocol from the preview protocol. Is it
po
On Thu, 26 May 2016 13:52:58 +0100
adlo wrote:
> > On 24 May 2016, at 16:06, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> >
> > The "private to weston" also means it should be a privileged interface:
> > arbitrary clients must not be able to use it, as it's none of their
> > concern and could be a security concern.
> On 11 May 2016, at 09:07, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>
> If some sort of protocol would be needed, then you have to figure out
> how to not make it a gaping security breach
>
What about Wayland Security Modules (libwsm)? In what ways does this fail to
address the security issues with privileged
Hi Benoit,
On 28 May 2016 at 12:45, Benoit Gschwind wrote:
> You should keep an eye on libweston :)
Yes indeed, I do have great hopes in libweston :)
Cheers,
Olivier
___
wayland-devel mailing list
wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.fre
Hello Olivier,
You should keep an eye on libweston :)
Best regards
Le 20/05/2016 10:33, Olivier Fourdan a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On 12 May 2016 at 00:35, ade low wrote:
>> [...]
>> It is important that it is a standard, cross-compositor protocol. For
>> example, if I am using my app on "xfwm-wayla
> On 24 May 2016, at 16:06, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>
> The "private to weston" also means it should be a privileged interface:
> arbitrary clients must not be able to use it, as it's none of their
> concern and could be a security concern.
>
What about Wayland Security Modules (libwsm)? In what
On Tue, 24 May 2016 14:53:25 +0100
adlo wrote:
> > On 20 May 2016, at 08:50, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> >
> > You would design a new protocol extension private to Weston, with which
> > you deliver to your client the handles for top-level windows as they
> > come and go. Then with those handles yo
> On 20 May 2016, at 08:50, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>
> You would design a new protocol extension private to Weston, with which
> you deliver to your client the handles for top-level windows as they
> come and go. Then with those handles you could design a protocol for
> laying out a scaled versio
> On 20 May 2016, at 09:33, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
>
> FWIW, if xfce were to support Wayland some day, we'd probably built it
> on top of an existing compositor manager (mutter is probably the best
> bet for a gtk+ based environment) and just like with GNOME shell,
> window previews/thumbnails w
Hi,
On 12 May 2016 at 00:35, ade low wrote:
> [...]
> It is important that it is a standard, cross-compositor protocol. For
> example, if I am using my app on "xfwm-wayland" and then I decide that I
> want to switch to KWin, my app should continue to work.
As a side note, there is no such thing
On Thu, 19 May 2016 18:10:19 +0100
adlo wrote:
> > On 12 May 2016, at 08:57, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 11 May 2016 23:35:01 +0100
> > ade low wrote:
> >> My use case is third-party window switcher applications, such as
> >> xfdashboard or my program, xfce4-lightdash-plugin:
> >>
> On 12 May 2016, at 08:57, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2016 23:35:01 +0100
> ade low wrote:
>> My use case is third-party window switcher applications, such as
>> xfdashboard or my program, xfce4-lightdash-plugin:
>> https://github.com/adlocode/xfce4-lightdash-plugin
>
> The imple
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 3:57 AM Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2016 23:35:01 +0100
> ade low wrote:
>
> > Thank you for the feedback, that was very helpful.
> >
> > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Pekka Paalanen
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > You should explain the use case behind the idea
On Wed, 11 May 2016 23:35:01 +0100
ade low wrote:
> Thank you for the feedback, that was very helpful.
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> >
> >
> > You should explain the use case behind the idea. Then it would be
> > possible to assess whether such protocol would even
Thanks for your feedback too.
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Derek Foreman
wrote:
>
>
> But I'm of the opinion that this doesn't need to be a "wayland" problem
> at all - but I'm not saying there can't be a standard way to do this.
>
> It just doesn't need to be solved by adding wayland protoco
Thank you for the feedback, that was very helpful.
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>
>
> You should explain the use case behind the idea. Then it would be
> possible to assess whether such protocol would even be appropriate for
> it.
>
My use case is third-party window swi
On 11/05/16 03:07 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2016 21:30:53 +0100
> ade low wrote:
>
>> I think that it would be a good idea to have a standard, cross-compositor
>> protocol for getting previews/thumbnails of windows, similar to XComposite.
>
> Hi,
>
> I strongly disagree. A huge
On Tue, 10 May 2016 21:30:53 +0100
ade low wrote:
> I think that it would be a good idea to have a standard, cross-compositor
> protocol for getting previews/thumbnails of windows, similar to XComposite.
Hi,
I strongly disagree. A huge part of Wayland's reason to exist is that
things like XComp
I think that it would be a good idea to have a standard, cross-compositor
protocol for getting previews/thumbnails of windows, similar to XComposite.
This protocol should be as fast as possible and use as little system
resources as possible. It should probably provide a handle to the native
window
24 matches
Mail list logo
