On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:51:36 +0000 Simon Ser <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 1:23 PM, Pekka Paalanen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Removing the initial uncertainty would require quite some more protocol > > "after binding"? > > > > If a client creates a color space object from an ICC profile, there is > > no need to send the ICC file immediately back to the client. > > > > Should sending this event be tied to the request that created this > > object, or should this object have an explicit request to emit this > > event? > > Does the client know in advance what the size of the profile will be? Why would it need to? > (Maybe this should be an event, and the request to fill a FD a request) I meant that the proposed event with fd remains as is, but is never sent automatically; instead, a new request would be added that simply triggers sending the event. A request "please fill in this FD with the data" has a couple of issues: is the backing storage large enough, and how will the client know when it is done. These are certainly solvable, but complicate things. > > I think an explicit request would be better because... it is explicit. > > It does not add any roundtrips that are not already there. In the cases > > where a client likely wants to get the ICC file, it has already had to > > create the color space protocol object itself and sending another > > request on the object goes in the same message burst as creating it. Thanks, pq
pgpmy8yj05VQ6.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
