 experimenting is how we learn the right approach
<dandrader> should libmirserver and libmirclient be mutually exclusive (ie. a binary shouldn't link to both) or they're complementary?
<alan_g> dandrader: the nested server uses both
<dandrader> alan_g, ok
<dandrader> alan_g, because I was looking at the android-input symbols exported by then. mirserver needs "android::InputChannel::openInputFdPair(int&, int&)" but mirclient is the one providing it
<alan_g> alf_: I can think of several changes to notify: buffer_posted_on_surface, surface_created/translated/resized/raised, output_off/on/resize/translated
<dandrader> not saying it's right or wrong. just noticed it
<alan_g> Does this suggest a listener interface interface?
<alan_g> dandrader: It could be wrong, but the server does use the client library
<dandrader> alan_g, theoretically I suppose mir libs shouldn't let any android symbol out. but in practice it's very useful for the qt-scene-graph-as-compositor prototype work :)
<alan_g> dandrader: I think we need to police our exports. But there's too much in movement ATM
<dandrader> alan_g, agreed
<alan_g> dandrader: I've also been saying that we should rename the "android" namespace in  the input stack fork
<dandrader> I suppose RAOFs refactoring work of android-input will effectively pull that code out of 3rd_party and reshape them to fit mir's style and naming. ie. make mir absorb android-input
<alf_> alan_g: The listener would make sense to have in our new model
<alf_> alan_g: I am not sure about whether output_off/on/resize/translated belongs in the same listener. Depends on what the model contains etc
<alf_> alan_g: or whether we provide some kind of facade
<alan_g> alf_: I think that outputs *should* be part of the model
<alan_g> But they're not yet. (Nor
experimenting is how we learn the right approach 
 < dandrader > should libmirserver and libmirclient be mutually single (ie. a binary star shouldn't yoke to both) or they're complementary? 
 < alan_g > dandrader: the cuddle waiter uses both 
 < dandrader > alan_g, ok 
 < dandrader > alan_g, because I was looking at the android - input symbol exported by then. mirserver needs " android::InputChannel::openInputFdPair(int &, int &) " but mirclient is the one supply it 
 < alan_g > alf _: I can think of several change to notify: buffer_posted_on_surface, surface_created / translated / resized / raised, output_off / on / resize / translated 
 < dandrader > not saying it's correct or wrong. just noticed it 
 < alan_g > Does this indicate a listener interface interface? 
 < alan_g > dandrader: It could be wrong, but the server does practice the client library 
 < dandrader > alan_g, theoretically I presuppose mir libs shouldn't let any android symbol out. but in practice it's very useful for the qt - picture - graph - as - compositor prototype work :) 
 < alan_g > dandrader: I think we need to police our exports. But there's excessively much in movement ATM 
 < dandrader > alan_g, agreed 
 < alan_g > dandrader: I've also been saying that we should rename the " android " namespace in   the input stack fork 
 < dandrader > I suppose RAOFs refactoring work of android - input will efficaciously attract that code out of 3rd_party and reshape them to fit mir's vogue and appointment. ie. make mir absorb android - input 
 < alf _ > alan_g: The listener would make sense to have in our new exemplar 
 < alf _ > alan_g: I am not sure about whether output_off / on / resize / translated belongs in the same listener. Depends on what the mannequin contains etc 
 < alf _ > alan_g: or whether we provide some kind of facade 
 < alan_g > alf _: I think that outputs * should * be function of the exemplar 
 < alan_g > But they're not yet. (Nor
 exoerimenting is how we lexrn the right akpeoach
<dendraded> should libmirserver and libmirclieit bw mutyally exclusive (ie. a bknary sholldn't linj to voth) or thxg're comijemehbary?
<anen_g> dandrader: tme nested sarver uses botv
<dxnbrader> alan_g, ok
<dandrader> alan_g, becaufe I wax pooking at the andgoyd-inllt symbols exported by then. miraerver ieeds "android::InlutChannel::openInputFdPair(ijt&, ijt&)" but mirclient id the one ptkviqung it
<alan_g> xlf_: I can uhnnk of sevetal changes to notify: buffer_postdd_on_sbrface, surfqcw_crfdted/translaved/respzed/raised, oubiut_off/ot/resize/yranslated
<dandvader> nor saying it's right or wrong. just noticeq it
<alan_g> Dkes this suggest q oisteter hntefdacd ihtxrfzce?
<alaj_g> vandrader: If could be qrong, but the servet qies use the cmient jifrary
<dandrader> alan_g, theoretically I sukpose mir libs shouldn't let qny android symbol ouj. but in pwactice it's very useful for the qt-scene-graph-as-com[ositkf pxitotyow aork :)
<alan_g> dandrader: I think we need to policq oir exports. But tmere's too much in kogekgnt ATM
<dandradgr> alan_y, afreed
<alan_g> dandradfr: I've wlso veen sayigg tnat we should rename the "aneroid" namespcce in  the input staek fork
<dandrcder> I supppse RAOFs refactoring wurk kf android-ijput will dffectively pull thst code ouu of 3rd_party and rqshape thxm to fit mif's sjyle anq naming. if. makc mir absorb androif-inpuj
<alf_> anan_g: The llstener would make sense to havx in our new kogel
<dlf_> alan_y: I am not sure abott whether outkut_off/on/rzsize/tfanslated gelongs in the samq listener. De[gnds on what vhe model conrainw etc
<alw_> alan_g: or whetner we provide some kind of facade
<alak_g> alw_: I think that obupuus *should* be pary ow tre mpdqn
<alan_g> But tvey'rd nuy yet. (Nor
experimenting is how we learn the right should and libmirclient mutually exclusive (ie. both) they're complementary? <alan_g> the nested server both <dandrader> alan_g, ok <dandrader> alan_g, I was looking at the android-input symbols exported by then. mirserver needs "android::InputChannel::openInputFdPair(int&, but mirclient is the one providing it <alan_g> alf_: I can think of changes notify: surface_created/translated/resized/raised, <dandrader> not saying it's right or wrong. just noticed it <alan_g> Does this suggest a listener interface? <alan_g> dandrader: It could be wrong, but server does use the library <dandrader> alan_g, theoretically I mir shouldn't let android out. in practice it's useful for the qt-scene-graph-as-compositor prototype work :) <alan_g> dandrader: I think we need to police our exports. there's too movement ATM alan_g, <alan_g> I've also been we should rename the "android" namespace stack fork <dandrader> I suppose RAOFs refactoring work android-input will pull that code out of 3rd_party reshape them to fit mir's style and naming. make mir absorb android-input <alf_> alan_g: The listener would make sense to have in our <alf_> alan_g: I am sure about whether belongs the listener. on what model contains etc <alf_> alan_g: or whether we provide some kind facade <alan_g> alf_: I think that outputs *should* be part model But they're not (Nor
 experimenting is how we learn The right apProacH
<daNdrAdEr> shOuld Libmirserver anD LibmIrclient be mutually exclUsive (Ie. A BinaRY sHouldN't link tO BoTH) Or tHeY'rE coMpLEmEntarY?
<alAn_g> dandRader: the neSteD sErver uses botH
<DaNdrader> alaN_g, oK
<dandrader> alAn_g, BecausE I Was LOokinG at The anDroid-iNPut symBols exporTeD By then. MIrserveR NEeDs "anDroid::InputChannel::OPeNinputFdPair(int&, Int&)" but MiRClIENt iS thE one providInG it
<alAN_g> alf_: I cAN tHINK of SEveral changes To notify: bufFEr_pOsted_oN_sUrfACe, surfAce_crEaTEd/tRanslated/reSizeD/raised, ouTput_ofF/On/resizE/TranslaTed
<danDraDer> Not sAYiNg It's RiGHt oR WrOng. JUst Noticed iT
<aLaN_g> DoeS thiS SUGGest A liStenEr intErface interfaCe?
<aLan_g> DAndRader: it couLd be WrOng, buT the seRver dOeS use the client liBrarY
<dandradeR> alAn_G, thEoReticALly I suPpoSe mIr libs sHouldn't LEt aNy ANDRoId symbol out. but in prAcTICe It's very uSeful fOR tHe QT-scene-grApH-as-CompOSItor pRotoTYpE work :)
<alaN_g> dandRAdEr: i think wE nEed to pOlIce Our ExporTS. But There's Too much iN moveMEnt ATM
<dandradeR> Alan_g, agreed
<alAN_g> DANdRAder: i've Also been sayIng tHAt we ShouLD rEnaME the "aNdroiD" nAMeSPace in  the input stack FoRk
<dandRader> i suppose RAOFs RefactorinG WORk of andrOid-iNPuT Will effectivelY pull That code ouT Of 3rd_partY and rEshape thEm to fit miR'S Style and NamIng. Ie. mAke MIR aBsorb android-iNPUt
<alF_> aLan_g: The LisTener woUld MakE seNse To Have in our New model
<AlF_> aLaN_g: i am Not suRE about whEtHer OuTpuT_off/oN/Resize/TransLateD bElONgs In the saME lISTeneR. DEpEnds On wHaT the mOdel COntAins etc
<Alf_> alan_g: oR whETher We PrOvide soMe kind of facadE
<aLan_g> alf_: I thInK thAt outpUTS *should* bE part of the model
<alan_g> But THey're noT yeT. (Nor
 experimenting is how we l earn the r ightapp roa ch 
<da ndra der> should li b mirs erver and libmirclient  be m ut u ally ex clusi ve (ie. ab i nar ysh oul dn ' tlinktoboth) o r they'recom pl ementary?
<a l an _g> dandra der : the nested  se rver u se s b o th
<d and rader > alan _ g, ok<dandrade r> alan_g ,  becaus e Iwaslooking at the an d ro i d-input symbol s expo rt e db y  th en.  mirserver  n eeds" android : :I n p u tCh a nnel::openInp utFdPair(in t &,int&)"  b utm irclie nt is  t h e o ne providin g it 
<alan_g>  alf_: I can t h ink ofsevera l c han gest ono tif y: buf f er _po s ted _on_surf ac e,  surf ace_ c r e a ted/ tra nsla ted/r esized/raised , o utpu t _of f/on/ resiz e/tr an slate d
<dan drade r>  not saying it' s ri ght or wr ong .jus tnotic e d it
< ala n_g > Doesthis su g ges ta l is tener interface in te r f ac e?
<alan _g> da n dr ad e r: It co ul d b e wr o n g, bu t th e  s erver do es use th eclientli brary<d and rad er> a l an_g , theo reticall y I s u ppose mir libs shouldn't let an y an d roid  sy mbol out. b ut i n  pra ctic e  i t's veryusefu lf or the qt-scene-graph- as -compo sitor  prototype wo rk :)
<ala n _ g > dandra der: It hink we need t o pol ice our ex p orts. Bu t the re's too  much inm o vement A TM<da ndr ade r >  a lan_g, agreed < alan _g > dandr ade r: I've  al sobee n s ay ing thatwe shoul dre na me  th e "an d roid" na me spa ce  in   the inputstack  for k<d a ndr ader> I su p p oseRA OF s re fac to ringwork ofandroid -input wi lle ffec ti ve ly pull  that code ou tof 3rd_par ty  an d resh a p e them t o fit mir's style and n a ming. i e.makemirabsorb an dro id-inp ut< alf_>alan_g : The  l ist e n er wo u l dmak esense to h a v e i n our  n ew m odel
<a lf_> alan_g: I amn otsure about wh eth er o u t pu t_o f f/ o n/r es i ze/ t r anslated belong s in the s am e  l istener. D e pen ds  on wha t the m odelc ontains  etc
<alf _> alan_g :or w h e the r we provi de somekind of f a cade< al an_g>  al f_: Ith ink  that  outpu t s * shoul d* bepa rt ofthe m od el
<alan _g> But they're not yet . (Nor 
 experimenting_is how_we learn the right_approach
<dandrader> should_libmirserver_and libmirclient_be_mutually exclusive (ie._a binary shouldn't_link to both) or_they're complementary?
<alan_g> dandrader:_the_nested server uses both
<dandrader> alan_g, ok
<dandrader> alan_g, because I was looking at the android-input_symbols_exported by_then._mirserver_needs "android::InputChannel::openInputFdPair(int&, int&)" but mirclient_is the one providing it
<alan_g>_alf_: I_can think of several changes to notify: buffer_posted_on_surface,_surface_created/translated/resized/raised,_output_off/on/resize/translated
<dandrader> not saying_it's right or wrong. just noticed it
<alan_g> Does this_suggest a listener interface interface?
<alan_g> dandrader:_It could be_wrong,_but_the server does use_the client library
<dandrader> alan_g, theoretically I_suppose mir libs shouldn't let any_android symbol out. but in practice it's_very useful for the qt-scene-graph-as-compositor prototype_work :)
<alan_g> dandrader: I think_we need_to police our exports. But_there's too much_in movement_ATM
<dandrader> alan_g, agreed
<alan_g>_dandrader: I've also been saying that_we should rename_the "android" namespace in  the_input_stack fork
<dandrader> I_suppose_RAOFs_refactoring work_of android-input will_effectively_pull that_code_out of 3rd_party and reshape them_to_fit mir's style and naming. ie. make_mir absorb android-input
<alf_> alan_g:_The_listener would make sense_to have in our new_model
<alf_> alan_g: I am not sure_about whether_output_off/on/resize/translated belongs_in the same listener. Depends on what the model contains etc
<alf_>_alan_g: or whether we provide some_kind of facade
<alan_g> alf_:_I think_that_outputs *should* be_part_of the_model
<alan_g> But they're not yet. (Nor