libinput varlink implementation?
ppaalanen at gmail.com
Sat May 12 15:04:32 UTC 2018
On Thu, 10 May 2018 10:10:10 +0200
Markus Ongyerth <wl at ongy.net> wrote:
> For the reasons stated above, I think we would be better suited with an
> interface defined as wayland extension. The downside is, that it has to be
> proxied and implemented by the compositor, but I think the advantages outweigh
FYI, there is no need for a compositor to proxy or implement stuff
on behalf of libinput. The whole Wayland extension implementation
can be inside libinput, enabled with a single function call that
passes the server-side wl_display to libinput. This is how libEGL
implementations provide vendor-specific Wayland extensions while
keeping compositors completely agnostic of any details.
A small hurdle is what to do about libinput needing to call
libwayland-server in that case.
This is not a vote for or against using a Wayland extension for
specifically this case. I just wanted to point out that there is no
need to require any more than few lines of code in compositors to
Personally, I don't think I would mind what the underlying protocol
to debug libinput is, as long as it is a simple matter for a
compositor to opt in, and read-only.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the wayland-devel