[Spice-devel] [patch 0/2] vdagent KEYVAL extension

[Marc-André Lureau]

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Dietmar Maurer <dietmar at proxmox.com> wrote:
>> So why do you ask? I am just answering your question.
>
> Oh, I get you wrong.  So you really think we can modify existing message formats based on caps?
> That looks a bit confusing to me, and it is not clear how that should work because message
> marshallers are auto-generated?

I don't remember. In the case of clipboard selection, it was certainly
easier since we don't use the marshaller atm. Perhaps have a second
marshaller function version for this case would work?

>> that's irrelevant for the protocol change. You can also convert most XT
>> scancode to utf...
>
> no, you can't do that (because you do not know the keymap)!
> You can do it for US keymap - but most of us do not use that keymap.

right, but it is assumed the server/vm have the keymap (or default).
It can convert to utf. That's what happen if i open gedit and type a
key. utf conversion is irrelevant to your change. It's just a keysym
you want to send. What you do with it, the protocol doesn't care.

The day the protocol send input strings, then it can be said it will
be utf8 encoded.


> I need utf8 and special/function keys. Using keysyms you get both.

I got that.

>> extension will not be relevant for typical client/vm usage (or even x11 & weston
>> server) that Spice is targetting, and I think you could use that arbitrary utf8 string
>> input approach instead. But I don't want to force you to do it. We can also
>> accept extensions to the protocol that are not relevant for VM.
>
> Great!
>
>> > > > It is still not clear to me what patch do you prefer - vdagent
>> > > > protocol extension or the input channel extension?
>> > >
>> > > In your case, a gdk_keyval message, the input channel.
>> >
>> > or better 'x11_keysym' message?
>>
>> You are using it with gdk constant in client and spiceterm, but gdk keysyms seems
>> to be exact mapping of x11. So either we decide to follow x11 or gdk. I would
>> tend to say Gdk, which is more cross-platform (even though it's in fact just x11
>> atm).
>
> But the gdk docs simply references to the x11 docs, so I guess x11 is the source.
> The also mention that they keep that in sync with x11.

yeah, and scratch what I said, X11 makes more sense has it is a
protocol, regardless of the platform.

So you have enough to update your patches?


-- 
Marc-André Lureau