[PATCH] Add layer-shell-unstable-v1.xml

Drew DeVault sir at cmpwn.com
Tue May 8 14:13:21 UTC 2018

On 2018-05-08  3:53 PM, Jonas Ã…dahl wrote:
> That is not really true. It still mainly consists of protocols that can
> be seen as a continuation, and I don't think we should give up on that
> idea.

I think this is an overly optimistic view of the current list of
protocols. Of the protocols, I think your description applies to:

- input-timestamps
- presentation-time
- xdg-output
- tablet
- relative-pointer
- pointer-constraints

The rest of them are dubiously characterized as logical extensions of
wayland.xml in my opinion. I don't see this as a bad thing, to be clear.

> It is not explicitly taking a desktop stance, but the xdg_ prefixed ones
> somewhat do though. But they still aim explicitly at third party regular
> applications, which is what I'm trying to emphasize here. Would we need
> to add a "phone" based shell, assuming xdg_* isn't appropriate, it'd
> according to be in scope because it's aimed at clients wanting to be
> portable.

Just because GNOME, for example, might not implement this protocol
doesn't make it non-portable. "Desktop component" clients which hope to
be portable will use this protocol, and there are tens of examples of
clients which qualify (I can list some if you're not familiar with
them). If they use layer-shell, they can expect to work on at least 5
compositors, and likely more in the future. If this isn't portable, what
is? Do they have to support GNOME to qualify as portable?

You didn't acknowledge this point, but I'd like to once again raise that
if you want wayland-protocols to be a logical extension of wayland.xml
that all compositors are expected to implement, the first item on the
chopping block is xdg-shell. This isn't hypothetical - there are
compositors out there today for which xdg-shell is ill-suited. IVI shell
exists for this very reason. xdg-shell is poorly suited to phones as

Of course, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I don't think we should
remove xdg-shell. But it's presence makes it hard to deny layer-shell
entry on the grounds of scope.

Drew DeVault

More information about the wayland-devel mailing list