[PATCH v3] wayland-util: added wl_strtol/wl_strtoul utility functions

[Imran Zaman]

I will push new patch with minor fix to the strtol function in wayland and
move this old patch (after segfault fix) to weston so that it does not end
up in libwayland APIs.
Consequently I changed its property in patchwork

BR
imran

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Imran Zaman <imran.zaman at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Giulio Camuffo <giuliocamuffo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 2014-10-29 8:45 GMT+02:00 Imran Zaman <imran.zaman at gmail.com>:
>> > Daniel!
>> >
>> > As per your logic, I see wl_list APIs exposed etc, which shouldn't be
>> part
>> > of libwayland as well.
>> > similarly, wl_fixed_to_double and wl_array shouldn't be part of the
>> window
>> > system. Isnt it?
>> > I can make inline functions if that helps.
>>
>> wl_list is used in the server side API, so it's a bit different.
>> However, I'd agree that it'd be better if it wasn't exposed but we
>> can't remove it now. wl_fixed is a wayland specific type so all the
>> wl_fixed_* functions need to be part of the API.
>> On the other hand wl_strtol would just be a function, there are is no
>> other API that depends on it.
>>
>> >
>> > Btw here is an API patch, which has not be reviewed till now.
>> >
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/2014-October/017833.html
>>
>> Yes, like there are many other patches waiting for reviews. You need
>> to have patience, it's not like we are ignoring it. But, if I may add,
>> the way you are reacting to a comment to this patch doesn't encourage
>> to review your other ones.
>>
>>
>>
> Neither the random/comments to the patch are encouraging :-) e.g. "AOL.
> We're a window system, not a replacement libc."
> Its your choice to review it or not; I did not put the API patch link here
> just because it has not been reviewed. I have lots of patience but Tizen
> may need something urgent or else we may need to fork wayland/weston in
> Tizen. I put it in the thread because Daniel said that we did not have any
> further progress/discussion on that end.
>
> Anyways I take the patch off, as it does not "sound" like it should be
> here to save everyone's time. If the time allows, I will remove it from
> public APIs in addition to one critical bug fix and resubmit the patch.
>
>
>
>> --
>> Giulio
>>
>> >
>> > BR
>> > imran
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On 28 October 2014 15:40, Imran Zaman <imran.zaman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> You guys should check the reason why the patch is there rather than
>> >>> throwing out random thoughts or blunt comments.
>> >>>
>> >>> I did this patch mainly because weston/wayland has been using
>> >>> strtol/strtoul functions in number of places with buggy error checks,
>> and
>> >>> duplicate code everywhere. Weston and wayland go together; so in
>> bigger
>> >>> picture, its a very useful patch IMO.. I hardly find any patches with
>> proper
>> >>> tests, but I did it so to make it more effective. But I guess in
>> >>> wayland/weston community, only maintainers are allowed to push patches
>> >>> others are strongly discouraged to do so. I guess its better to
>> encourage
>> >>> people/community for giving helping hand.
>> >>>
>> >>> Anyways we will now only push patches (including multi-seat support)
>> in
>> >>> Tizen weston/wayland rather than wasting time in upstreamn
>> weston/wayland as
>> >>> it seems to be long bureaucratic process to overcome with virtually no
>> >>> success.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> That's not what we've said. No-one said 'don't take the patch'; all we
>> >> said is 'please don't expose it as part of libwayland-*'s _public_
>> API'.
>> >>
>> >> I like the idea of the patch, I like how it's caught a number of buggy
>> >> spots where we've open-coded the same thing, and I like that it's
>> >> well-tested. For internal usage, it's great! I just don't want to
>> expose
>> >> string manipulation functions in the public API of a window system.
>> >>
>> >> You're right that the test infrastructure is in a pretty bad state.
>> >> Anything which helps that is more than welcome, and you may have seen a
>> >> bunch of patches from Derek Foreman (not a maintainer) on this list,
>> which
>> >> are progressing well and go a long way towards improving our test
>> suite into
>> >> something that will be really useful day to day. Any further
>> contributions
>> >> along those lines - from anyone - are totally welcome.
>> >>
>> >> As for your multiseat patches, the last discussions I remember involved
>> >> some pretty fundamental disagreements about the whole architecture,
>> >> particularly input support. I haven't seen any more patches or
>> discussion
>> >> since the last IRC chat, though.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Daniel
>> >>
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On 28 October 2014 15:40, Imran Zaman <imran.zaman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> You guys should check the reason why the patch is there rather than
>> >>> throwing out random thoughts or blunt comments.
>> >>>
>> >>> I did this patch mainly because weston/wayland has been using
>> >>> strtol/strtoul functions in number of places with buggy error checks,
>> and
>> >>> duplicate code everywhere. Weston and wayland go together; so in
>> bigger
>> >>> picture, its a very useful patch IMO.. I hardly find any patches with
>> proper
>> >>> tests, but I did it so to make it more effective. But I guess in
>> >>> wayland/weston community, only maintainers are allowed to push patches
>> >>> others are strongly discouraged to do so. I guess its better to
>> encourage
>> >>> people/community for giving helping hand.
>> >>>
>> >>> Anyways we will now only push patches (including multi-seat support)
>> in
>> >>> Tizen weston/wayland rather than wasting time in upstreamn
>> weston/wayland as
>> >>> it seems to be long bureaucratic process to overcome with virtually no
>> >>> success.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> That's not what we've said. No-one said 'don't take the patch'; all we
>> >> said is 'please don't expose it as part of libwayland-*'s _public_
>> API'.
>> >>
>> >> I like the idea of the patch, I like how it's caught a number of buggy
>> >> spots where we've open-coded the same thing, and I like that it's
>> >> well-tested. For internal usage, it's great! I just don't want to
>> expose
>> >> string manipulation functions in the public API of a window system.
>> >>
>> >> You're right that the test infrastructure is in a pretty bad state.
>> >> Anything which helps that is more than welcome, and you may have seen a
>> >> bunch of patches from Derek Foreman (not a maintainer) on this list,
>> which
>> >> are progressing well and go a long way towards improving our test
>> suite into
>> >> something that will be really useful day to day. Any further
>> contributions
>> >> along those lines - from anyone - are totally welcome.
>> >>
>> >> As for your multiseat patches, the last discussions I remember involved
>> >> some pretty fundamental disagreements about the whole architecture,
>> >> particularly input support. I haven't seen any more patches or
>> discussion
>> >> since the last IRC chat, though.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Daniel
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/attachments/20141104/03b43161/attachment-0001.html>