Stabilizing wl_scaler protocol extension
steve at snewbury.org.uk
Tue Sep 16 07:33:19 PDT 2014
On Tue, 2014-09-16 at 14:51 +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:26:12 +0200
> Alexander Preisinger preisinger at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi pq,
> > I use it in my wayland-next branch (for unstable wayland stuff) of
> > the mpv
> > player: http://mpv.io/
> > In this commit:
> > https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/commit/77cc885b44a9e95e5c3c9ae4961b9958ff5cf643
> Good to know, thanks.
> > I only just now realized that I should just use set_destination
> > for my use
> > case.
> > So setting the destination separately is definitely a use case and
> > I think
> > the set request is redundant.
> True, but I'm worried how many upset people there will be if I break
> the protocol during the migration by removing or renaming something.
> There should be no-one as it's all experimental still, but...
> > So far I really like the scaler extensions. But the scaling
> > quality has
> > lots of room for improvement.
> > I thought about improving the scaling quality, but didn't had the
> > opportunity to look into it.
> You mean in the Weston implementation? Yeah, that could very well
> be. I
> think fixing that would come after
> as it should make detecting the overall scaling factor a lot easier.
> However, I'm more interested in the protocol aspect right now, and
> there the scaling quality cannot be specified IMHO. We have to leave
> room for hardware overlays doing the scaling in unknown ways.
Wouldn't it be useful if the protocol could have a method of
presenting available scaling methods to the application so that the
user could configure the preferred trade-off of performance vs quality?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the wayland-devel