On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:25:19 +0300 Giulio Camuffo <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2016-03-29 6:23 GMT+03:00 Drew DeVault <[email protected]>: > > On 2016-03-29 2:15 AM, Martin Peres wrote: > >> I was proposing for applications to just bind the interface and see if it > >> works or not. But Giulio's proposal makes sense because it could be used to > >> both grant and revoke rights on the fly. > > > > I think both solutions have similar merit and I don't feel strongly > > about either one. > > If the client just binds the interface the compositor needs to > immediately create the resource and send the protocol error, if the > client is not authorized. It doesn't have the time to ask the user for > input on the matter, while my proposal gives the compositor that. More precisely, you cannot gracefully fail to use an interface exposed via wl_registry. It either works, or the client gets disconnected. Protocol error always means disconnection, and wl_registry has no other choice to communicate a "no, you can't use this". Checking "whether an interface works or not" is also not trivial. It would likely lead to adding a "yes, this works" event to all such interfaces, since anything less explicit is harder than necessary. But why do that separately in every interface rather than in a common interface? Btw. I did say in the past that I didn't quite understand or like Giulio's proposal, but I have come around since. For the above reasons, it does make sense on a high level. Thanks, pq
pgpL3f7kdpeQ3.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
