RFC: surface crop and scale protocol extension

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 12:52:15 +0100
Jonny Lamb <jonny.lamb at collabora.co.uk> wrote:

> Il giorno mar, 26/11/2013 alle 18.19 +0100, Jonny Lamb ha scritto:
> > This is the initial version of the weston implementation of the
> > wl_scaler protocol extension for surface cropping and scaling. It is
> > based on the extension RFC version 3, written by Pekka Paalanen.
> 
> Some slightly different protocol designs have been proposed for
> surface cropping and scaling, so with the idea of making the choice
> as easy as possible I have prepared branches with the different ideas:
> 
> 1. wl_scaler and wl_surface_scaler interfaces:
> 
>     This is the patchset I already posted to the list which adds the
>     wl_scaler global object and wl_surface_scaler objects are
>     created per surface:
> 
>     http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~jonny/weston/log/?h=scaler
> 
>     (The only difference between this branch and the patches sent to
>     the list is the removal of the "open issues" section in the
>     commit message of the commit that adds the protocol XML.)
> 
> 2. set_buffer_viewport request on wl_surface:
> 
>     No more extra interfaces but a new request on wl_surface:
> 
>     http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~jonny/wayland/log/?h=scaler-alt
>     http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~jonny/weston/log/?h=scaler-alt
> 
> 3. wl_scaler and wl_viewport interfaces:
> 
>     Exactly the same as the first proposal here but
>     wl_surface_scaler renamed to wl_viewport:
> 
>     http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~jonny/weston/log/?h=scaler-viewport
> 
> Choices choices choices!

I'm a bit surprised no-one has yet given their opinion as a reply
to this. :-o

For this one I have even less personal preference than for the
wl_fixed_t issue, as long as wl_subsurface is not an option.

If everyone is really indifferent here, then let's go with option 3,
wl_scaler and wl_viewport, which gives compositor implementations the
choice to not implement it. Ok?


Thanks,
pq