Indeed this is something I'm trying to make progress on and have just
explained my plan in the comments here:
https://code.launchpad.net/~vanvugt/mir/mir-display-config-header/+merge/311246
It's disapproved right now but I think when people think about the
problem a bit more that will change.
Slightly related you may be interested in:
https://code.launchpad.net/~vanvugt/mir/mirout-basic-commands/+merge/311372
I don't have an opinion on moving things between libraries yet. But in
the interest of keeping things clear and simple with minimal breaks, I
think that can be discussed separately later.
- Daniel
On 25/11/16 18:03, Alan Griffiths wrote:
It could be that I'm confused, or it could be that we're confused. So
I'm starting with a quick email. If need be I'll create a doc for
discussion.
The current situation is that we have multiple incompatible
representations of the display configuration:
1. MirDisplayConfiguration and the mir_display_config_... functions.
2. MirDisplayConfig and the mir_display_configuration_... functions.
3. The mir::graphics::DisplayConfiguration interface and the various
platform implementations.
It looks as though we have started to replace 1 with 2 but haven't yet
finished.
Looking at the code it seems the various platform implementations of 3
"just" populate similar data structures to provide the same functionality.
I think there is enough commonality that a single internal
implementation based on 2 could be used across server, platforms and
clients. I'd go so far as to say that DisplayConfiguration is a concept
that ought to be in libmircore (with a suitably ABI-stable API).
There would be advantages to having a single representation (DRY) and,
as servers, platforms and clients can operate in the same process, it is
easier to use,
--
Mir-devel mailing list
Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
