[Xcb] [RFC v0 proto] Add XInput2 protocol description

Peter Hutterer peter.hutterer at who-t.net
Tue Dec 4 01:57:50 PST 2012

On 4/12/12 17:20 , Daniel Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 08:08:10AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 10:05:37PM +0100, Daniel Martin wrote:
>>> (In the following I'll write "XI2" when I mean the XInput extension
>>> starting with version 2.0 and "XI" for the version up to 1.5.)
>>> On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 09:56:26AM -0500, Peter Harris wrote:
>>>> On 2012-12-02 16:05, Daniel Martin wrote:
>>>>> Add the XInput2 protocol description for reviewing and feedback.
>>>> I haven't had time to review the meat of this, but this stuck out on an
>>>> initial glance:
>>>>> +	xinput2.xml \
>>>>> +<xcb header="xinput2" extension-name="Input2"
>>>>> +     extension-xname="XInputExtension" major-version="2" minor-version="2">
>>>> That's the same extension-xname as xinput.xml. I suspect the new
>>>> definitions should be in xinput.xml, not in their own file.
>>> I've choosen to make it in a seperate file, cause the extension name is
>>> nearly the only thing both versions have in common and XI2 superseeds
>>> the functionallity provided by XI.
>>> Supporting both versions is not necessary as the XI specification
>>> states:
>>>      "... New clients are discouraged from using this protocol
>>>           specification. Instead, the use of XI 2.x is recommended. ..."
>>> Mixing both versions in one file would cause to much confusions on the
>>> (library) user side, as he wouldn't know which request is for which
>>> version without having a look at the specification.
>>> Due to that, the fact that the protocol description for XI is not
>>> complete and XI is disabled by default in libXCB, I would rather mark it
>>> as deprecated when this XI2 protocol description becomes usable. But, I
>>> wouldn't like to merge them.
>> you can't really deprecate XI1 yet, there's still quite a few clients using
>> it,
> I've meant deprecating XI1 in libxcb. There I thought it's not used that
> much in the wild.

It's most likely not used at all with xcb. Though really, IMO it's not 
libxcb's job to deprecate XI1 given that it can do XI1 just fine. It's 
the server that would have to drop it, but we won't see that happening 
anytime soon.

>> and, more importantly, some information is not available in XI2.
> Another thing where I "thought". Then we definitly can't deprecate XI1
> in libxcb.

More information about the Xcb mailing list