Sharing a single wl_display (client) by multiple toolkits

Jaroslaw Kubik jarek at
Mon Mar 25 11:49:44 UTC 2019

On Monday, 25 March 2019 11:20:16 CET Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 12:13:27 +0000
> Simon Ser <contact at> wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 23, 2019 1:50 PM, Scott Anderson 
<scott.anderson at> wrote:
> > > On 22/03/19 8:37 am, Jaroslaw Kubik wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > Does wayland-client support sharing a single connection object between
> > > > unrelated pieces of code? Such feature could be useful for integrating
> > > > multiple toolkits (ie. showing GTK widget in a Qt application). I am
> > > > trying
> > > > to get something similar (but less spectacular) done at the moment,
> > > > and
> > > > I am facing the following issue: When two unrelated pieces of code
> > > > (ie. GTK and Qt) use the same wl_display and both create a proxy to a
> > > > global object (ie. wl_output), then from the server perspective both
> > > > these
> > > > proxies are indistinguishable. When sending events like
> > > > wl_surface.enter,
> > > > the server has to pick a single wl_resource as an argument. That
> > > > wl_resource is bound to a specific wl_output proxy on the client
> > > > side. If the server chooses wrong, then the window created and
> > > > managed by Qt will receive wl_surface.enter event with wl_output
> > > > proxy instance that belongs to GTK. It will attempt to access it's
> > > > user-data and crash because it's not the data it is expecting.
> > > > In the above scenario the server has no way of knowing which of the
> > > > proxies
> > > > are expected as parameters in any given case. And the client has no
> > > > way of
> > > > "discovering" equivalent proxies in case it would like to straighten
> > > > it out. This leads me to believe that the design of the wayland
> > > > protocol makes it impossible to share a connection object between
> > > > unrelated code and that use-case is simply not supported.
> > > > Is that correct? Are there any plans to address this?
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > Jaroslaw Kubik
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Wayland can handle this perfectly fine. Separate sections of code can
> > > create their own wl_registries and bind their own wl_globals
> > > independently of each other, including using different versions of each
> > > global. The only requirement is that they use the same wl_display
> > > object, otherwise they will actually be two separate clients to the
> > > compositor.
> > 
> > The question is about "sharing a single connection object". This isn't
> > possible, an object (ie. proxy) can only be owned by a single consumer.
> > 
> > However, it's possible to make pieces of code use different objects,
> > and Scott gives here EGL's example. There are over examples too, for
> > instance some libraries can draw to a subsurface and the main program
> > can attach the subsurface to one of its surfaces.
> > 
> > tl;dr "sharing an object" is not possible, though the use-case you're
> > asking about can probably work.
> Hi,
> sharing the connection is indeed possible, though currently not too
> nice. There are several ways one could go about it in a toolkit. All
> solutions depend on compositors sending the relevant event for all
> proxies, there is no way a compositor can or even should differentiate
> between proxies for the same underlying (global) object. A proxy can
> only have one owner, so toolkits need to create their own wl_registry
> and from that create their own proxies if they want to do something on
> their own. This also puts some implications on protocol extension
> design, mind.
> One idea is arguably a hack: the first word pointed to by a wl_proxy
> userdata could be a magic value, that allows the toolkit to identify
> its own userdata.
> Another option is for a toolkit to store all potentially confusable
> userdata (or wl_proxy) pointers in a hash table, and then check the
> hash table if the userdata of a wl_proxy is known.
> I touched the topic in "Multiple input handlers" in
> It highlights another variant of the same problem: input 'enter'
> events, which carry a wl_surface argument.
> One more idea that might be interesting is to use
> wl_proxy_get_listener() to check that the listener was installed by the
> toolkit. If it was, then the userdata is owned by the toolkit as well.
> An advantage of this is that the listener is often a static const, so
> the overhead of tracking will be insignificant, and the method is
> reliable unlike the magic value hack. The disadvantage is that it gets
> more complicated if a toolkit has various listeners per object type.
> Toolkits do not need to all agree to use the same method. Toolkits only
> need to check if the proxy is owned by them. If even one toolkit does
> not verify the proxy ownership, it cannot be co-used with any other
> toolkit.
> To recap, the problem is this:
> - There are two toolkits using the same wl_display.
> - Each toolkit creates its own wl_registry.
> - Each toolkit binds its own wl_output globals, creating separate
>   proxies owned by exactly one toolkit.
> - When a compositor send wl_surface.enter(wl_output), it will actually
>   send one 'enter' for every wl_output proxy that exists for the client
>   and the specific wl_output.
> - The toolkit who owns the wl_surface, will necessarily receive both
>   'enter' events, and it needs to decide which one to use and ignore
>   the rest.
> It would be very cool to have this problem handled better by
> libwayland-client. It might be possible to add more API to set and get
> some kind of owner ID, e.g. a void*, which would be easy for toolkits
> to use. However, if someone wants to work on this, I would like to see
> justification on why using wl_proxy_get_listener() is not practical in
> a real use case.
> Thanks,
> pq


So if I understood this correctly, each event should be sent multiple times,
not only for each  receiving proxy, but also once for each instance of the
argument proxies (within the same client). Is that correct? If so, then I
see two issues with that design:
 - It does not scale very well. While I cannot think of one, there may be an
even that carries multiple proxy arguments. Since the server has no way of
telling which proxies (within the same client) "belong together", it has no
choice but to send each possible combination of argument proxies. This
makes the server code unnecessarily complex and may increase the number
of events sent too high;
 - There is currently no wl_proxy_get_dispatcher function in the wayland
client library. The toolkits that use dispatchers rather than listeners cannot
use the suggested method of discovering "foregin" proxies. From what I
have seen within the implementation, for now the pointer returned by
wl_proxy_get_listener should be the same and therefore sufficient for
comparison, but it is an artifact of current implementation and until it
is documented cannot be relied upon.
The alternative with magic values in user data would require coordination
of actual format of that data and assignment of magic values. It is unlikely 
to become a widely accepted practice.

Best Regards,
Jaroslaw Kubik

More information about the wayland-devel mailing list