On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 09:56:57AM +0200, Philipp Kerling wrote: > Am Freitag, den 30.06.2017, 15:42 +0800 schrieb Jonas Ådahl: > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 08:48:58AM +0200, Philipp Kerling wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Am Freitag, den 30.06.2017, 13:50 +0800 schrieb Jonas Ådahl: > > > > Rename the interfaces according to the wayland-protocols policy. > > > > Since > > > > the name 'xdg_shell' as an interface was already taken (by > > > > xdg-shell-unstable-v5) zxdg_shell_v6 was renamed xdg_wm_base. The > > > > surface role related interfaces were not renamed, as naming > > > > collision > > > > is only unmanagable when exposed as globals via the registry. > > > > > > What about clients that want to support both xdg_shell (unstable > > > v5) > > > and xdg_wm_base? Won't they have a problem with > > > A. clashing type/function/macro names in the header files > > > generated by > > > wayland-scanner, at least when they are including both > > > headers in > > > one file? > > > B. clashing interface global names (e.g. > > > "xdg_toplevel_interface") at > > > link time even when they do not include both headers at the > > > same > > > time? > > > > Right. This means you can't have xdg_shell_unstable_v5 at the same > > time > > as xdg_wm_base, without messing around avoiding compiling and linking > > issues. > > > > Personally I'd rather not support v5 instead of coming up with new > > names > > for everything; it *is* (was) an unstable protocol version and it has > > always been expected that support for it will be removed. > Yes I know, but the situation is that this particular unstable protocol > practically had to be implemented to have a somewhat usable desktop > experience due to the shortcomings of wl_shell. > > > Do you know of > > any client out in the wild that still only supports xdg_shell > > unstable > > v5? > I was thinking more of e.g. Qt (or any other toolkit) that supports > wl_shell, xdg_shell unstable v5 and v6 (albeit to a wildly differing > extent sadly) and would now have to drop unstable v5 in order to > support xdg_wm_base. Also, I think both KWin and Qt did only support > unstable v5 until very recently. wl_shell is always available as > fallback though.
I see. > Do note that I am not personally opposed to saying that that's the way > it is going to be, I just wanted to point this out since the commit > message was a bit brief on the implications of keeping the interface > names. If you have considered this and decided that people will have to > drop v5 support (compositors as well as clients I presume) if they had > it before, everything is fine by me. The compatibility issues raised in the commit message is about clients discovering what a compositor supports, rather then what a compositor can implement without too much trouble. FWIW, an alternative if is too much of an issue is to add support to wayland-scanner to add a custom prefix/postfix to symbols, so we can have the unstable v5 symbols not look like stable ones. It's a valid issue to raise though and should be properly documented some how, I had not considered the linking issues. Jonas > > - Philipp _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
