On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:46:15 +0000 Emil Velikov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19 January 2018 at 15:49, Derek Foreman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2018-01-19 01:22 AM, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:48:14AM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> the original proposal was to prefix ABI symbols, and leave everything > >>> else as is. Maybe writing down again how exactly that is supposed to be > >>> used and what problems it solves would crystallize the idea. Perhaps in > >>> the form of wayland-scanner user instructions which the original patch > >>> seems to be lacking? > >>> > >>> Earlier I didn't like prefixing only some bits of the API, but on > >>> second thought, if that's all what's needed, maybe it isn't that bad > >>> from hand-written code readability point of view? > >>> > >>> The discussion showed that any other solution becomes hard and/or messy > >>> compared to that. This is not a library ABI/API change either, just a > >>> new operation mode in wayland-scanner. > >>> > >>> I join you with the question about use cases and how badly do we need > >>> this. > >> > >> > >> I don't see the point in keeping xdg-shell unstable v5 support in > >> weston, so from that point of view, *weston* I'd say don't need any > >> symbol prefix feature. > >> > > > > Ok, I guess at this point we should drop it from consideration for the next > > release. > > > > Pekka's synopsis is a really good status report for anyone interested in > > picking this up later without reading all the previous threads. > > > Something I mentioned over IRC, but forgot to add it here. > QT5 has been using unstable protocols for a while now. Combine that with: > - interface symbols are exported by default > - binary-only applications ship with their own version of QT (some > even have wayland-client.so and wayland-egl.so...) > - some of those won't be updated to use the stable interface > > This brings us to the original topic - symbol collusion. Jonas' idea > sounds reasonable to me. Hi Emil, all those issues sounds like they would be solved by not exporting symbols and ensuring to use only local symbols for resolving, which are both quite orthogonal. One cannot change a prefix every time when building a different version of a protocol definition. Where not exporting and local resolution would not be available, arguably neither would prefixing. Therefore I think we should concentrate on the no-export feature rather than prefixing. Let's try hard to drop xdg-shell v5 completely, just like originally intended. I want to keep the distiction between unstable and stable. Thanks, pq
pgp1YlrOQ0Nz2.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
