Skip to content

GitLab

  • Projects
  • Groups
  • Snippets
  • Help
    • Loading...
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Sign in / Register
wayland
wayland
  • Project overview
    • Project overview
    • Details
    • Activity
    • Releases
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
  • Issues 96
    • Issues 96
    • List
    • Boards
    • Labels
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge Requests 27
    • Merge Requests 27
  • CI / CD
    • CI / CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Operations
    • Operations
    • Incidents
    • Environments
  • Packages & Registries
    • Packages & Registries
    • Container Registry
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • CI / CD
    • Repository
    • Value Stream
  • Members
    • Members
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • wayland
  • waylandwayland
  • Issues
  • #96

Closed
Open
Opened Jun 12, 2019 by Victor Berger@levans

Specify destructor events in the XML protocol files

While they should in general be avoided, there are currently destructor events in some protocols. I know of at least 3 of them:

  • wl_callback.done in the core protocol
  • zwp_linux_buffer_release_v1.fenced_release and zwp_linux_buffer_release_v1.immediate_release in the linux-explicit-synchronization protocol

Some language bindings make use of the "destructor" type of some requests to automatically handle the destruction of the associated Wayland objects (wayland-rs does for example), and they could use the same annotation for the events. (Currently, the wayland-rs scanner contains an hard-coded list of destructor events to patch the protocol files during code generation.)

Much like specifying the enum name for enum arguments, this is a change that would not affect users of the C API, but could improve bindings in other languages.

Is there anything that would be problematic with adding such annotation to the XML format, or is there some issue I didn't think about?

To upload designs, you'll need to enable LFS and have an admin enable hashed storage. More information
Assignee
Assign to
None
Milestone
None
Assign milestone
Time tracking
None
Due date
None
Reference: wayland/wayland#96