[PATCH wayland] Add "enum" attribute to "arg" elements
jbinero at gmail.com
Tue Apr 21 09:32:40 PDT 2015
I think I have thought out a solution.
The scanner should be able to parse multiple specification files. There
would be the default wayland.xml, and for example a gnome.xml, which is an
extension to the wayland.xml. It does only contain things like added
interfaces, added requests, added events and added enum variants. The
scanner would merge all these files together.
This means that enums can be complete. If a user wants to have additional
values, they should simply add an XML for the extended feature set. This
would also reduce and fragmentation, as extensions to the protocol don't
require one to maintain an entire wayland.xml file anymore. It also allows
people to use multiple protocol extensions at once, without merging
multiple, already-forked specifications.
What are the opinions on this?
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 at 09:18 Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:54:59 +0000
> Jeroen Bollen <jbinero at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 at 09:03 Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, adding the strict type information to the XML spec has no benefit
> > > for C, which is the de facto language for Wayland core developers. A C
> > > compiler also does not raise errors if you violate the rules. This and
> > > all the above are the likely reasons why adding the strict type
> > > information is not interesting, at least for me.
> > >
> > > Making the enum rules more strict has a possibility to break existing
> > > users, but to me it is unclear if the benefit would outweigh that
> > > con or the freedom.
> > >
> > > On the wire, an enum or bitfield is still just an uint (or int), and a
> > > buggy client or server may cause the other to receive illegal values.
> > > Do the strongly typed languages have checks against that? Can you
> > > define what happens if the value is illegal for an enum? Or do you have
> > > to write that check manually in any case?
> > >
> > > So, the big question here is: do we even want to have strict enum
> > >
> > It does indeed not provide any benefit for C, but if C is the only
> > to be targeted, there is not much use in there being an XML specification
> > at all. It could've just been written out in C. I do agree that any
> > should be compatible with C.
> > I know in Rust, conversion from the `uint` to the `enum` type would have
> > be done manually, and error checking happens here. It does stop the user
> > from passing illegal values to other servers however. It also makes it
> > clear what `enum`s are to be used with which arguments, and enforces
> > I don't really see why adding that to the specification is an issue. If
> > some `enum` types aren't complete, as in, they aren't the only valid
> > values, then I see little value in having the `enum` in the specification
> > in the first place.
> The foremost purpose of the <enum> is to let the generator create named
> constants in a namespace. This is something that has to stay due to
> API stability guarantees.
> I had some discussion in IRC, and I'm coming around. It does seem a
> useful addition, but you have to be clear in specifying what it all
> means. For instance, saying an attribute referencing an <enum> in an
> <arg> for purely documentation linkage would be fine. We don't have
> docs for the XML language, but at least define it in a commit message.
> If such annotation is intended to be useful for code generation on
> relevant languages, you need to define clearly what it means. I'm not
> familiar with those languages you are interested in, so I cannot judge
> What I would want, is patches to wayland-scanner to use these
> additional annotations, if only for syntax checking the XML and maybe
> generating one more comment for an <arg> or whatever. Unfortunately
> wayland-scanner still is the definition of the Wayland XML language.
> It should be kept updated in any case.
> Two things I came up with in the IRC discussion was that only <arg>
> types of int an uint are eligible for enums, and only uint for
> bitfields. I think wayland-scanner should enforce that.
> One question was about whether bitfield values should be limited to
> single bits (powers of two). I think that would be an artificial
> restriction, and it would not allow using short-hand names for sets of
> bits. I see no reason to deny those.
> Another is the question about incomplete enumerations. I don't think we
> can deny their existence. Therefore they must be supported. If that
> means you cannot put the enum attribute in such an <arg>, then so be
> it; but you lose also the doc linkage. Extending value or bit
> enumerations is something that happens, and with the expectation that
> it doesn't break anything. An interface that expects to see new entries
> in an enumeration in the future will specify how unknown values should
> be dealt with. You maybe have your code generated according to an old
> specification, while the other party is using a new specification, and
> you need to obey the interface specification regarding unknown values.
> This has to work.
> Btw. the wayland.dtd is abandoned. The rationale was that if it catches
> errors that wayland-scanner doesn't, then wayland-scanner should be
> fixed. We should probably remove that file, and preferably replace it
> with documentation that agrees with wayland-scanner. If only had the
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the wayland-devel