On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 14:44 +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > struct SpiceImplementation {
> > SpiceBaseInterface *interface;
> > };
> >
> > struct SpiceKeyboard {
> > SpiceImplementation parent;
> > };
>
> Those two are pretty simliar to SpiceInterfaceState and SpiceKbdState.
>
> > struct KeyboardInterface {
> > SpiceBaseInterface base;
> >
> > void (*push_scan_freg)(SpiceKeyboard *keyboard, uint8_t frag);
> > uint8_t (*get_leds)(SpiceKeyboard *keyboard);
> > };
>
> I've considered something simliar, but decided to *not* do this.
>
> I don't want to make the SpiceKbdState struct layout part of the
> library
> interface, so we can easily extend it as needed without breaking the
> ABI.
I don't mean that SpiceKeyboard is the same as SpiceKbdState, i mean for
it to be exactly the struct above. Its just useful to get a pointer to
the interface from the instance.
There would still be a separate spice-side state object like
SpiceKbdState. And if we want to be able to pair the two we could return
it from spice_server_add() just like in your proposal.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc
al...@redhat.com alexander.lars...@gmail.com
He's a one-legged native American barbarian on a search for his missing
sister. She's a supernatural wisecracking barmaid with the power to bend men's
minds. They fight crime!
_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
