Hi, On 28 October 2016 at 06:22, Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> wrote: > Short story behind this email is: I seriously question the point of having a > tablet implementation in weston. I know it's supposed to be the test bed for > protocols (fwiw, we already have mutter + GTK support for tablets). But in > order to test this particular protocol, a lot of supporting infrastructure > has to be there that libtoytoolkit doesn't have. In addition, there are a > couple of things to be added to the compositor support, especially for mode > switching, that I question the value of having this in weston at all [1].
Well, there are two different questions here. Weston, I'd say yes (see below). toytoolkit though, is on the whole not worth bothering with. Maybe a separate test client akin to simple-touch would be useful for people to do testing/validation with, and get a rough idea of how things are supposed to work, but definitely not in the core toolkit. > Some or most of this work will likely end up being an unused (and thus > untested) code path, the compositors that care about a niche feature like > graphics tablet support are unlikely to be the ones that use libweston. Hm, I don't know about that to be honest. I can definitely imagine usecases outside the desktop for which tablets would be good. And hey, a second implementation is always a pretty good way to validate that you haven't encoded some weird semantics in the protocol that make it difficult for others to implement. Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
