On 22 January 2018 at 15:09, Pekka Paalanen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > Fair enough. Ignore I said anything ;-)
-Emil _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
