> > On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 22:08:38 +0100 > Eugen Friedrich <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Pekka, > > > > thanks for the replay! > > Hi Eugen, > > did you intend to cc the mailing list? > actually yes
> > > I would also like to see if we can forbid requests that both destroy > > > the protocol object and create another one in one message. This would > > > avoid the need for wl_proxy_marshal_constructor_destroy(). Marshalling > > > is already getting a little bit combinatorial with constructor, > > > versioned, and array. > > > > > this I did not get! > > the requests are not in the same message, destroy is an request > > and create an event in this case, also triggered by different calls: > > wl_display_flush for sending requrest and > > wl_display_read/dispatch* to receive the events. > > Have nothing in mind how to prevent the race, what should be forbidden? > > I wasn't talking about any known existing protocol extension we know > of. It is just that I suspect it is currently not forbidden to design a > request that is both a destructor and has a new_id argument, so we > should assume that someone out there is doing exactly that. > > If someone is doing that, wayland-scanner needs to figure out how to > call the wl_proxy API. To make that use case race-free against > everything else that might be going on, there would need to be a > wl_proxy_marshal_constructor_destroy() kind of functionality. I would > not like to have to add that, it seems too niche. > > If it was added, it would need versioned vs. unversioned, and array vs. > vararags forms as well, so it would be at least four new ABI functions. > maybe it will be possible to forbid any arguments for type=destructor? at least currently could not find any desctructor with arguments in the wayland-protocols.. > > Thanks, > pq _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
