Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merge the Windowing proposal #5

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
23 changes: 0 additions & 23 deletions wit/animation-frame.wit

This file was deleted.

33 changes: 0 additions & 33 deletions wit/key-events.wit

This file was deleted.

35 changes: 0 additions & 35 deletions wit/mini-canvas.wit

This file was deleted.

36 changes: 0 additions & 36 deletions wit/pointer-events.wit

This file was deleted.

37 changes: 37 additions & 0 deletions wit/raw-display.wit
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
package wasi:webgpu;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How's this different from frame-buffer.wit?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a display API, frame-buffer is a graphics API. But you're right, the intended use is to connect a display to a frame-buffer to draw into, primarily for embedded devices. The difference is that frame-buffer is an arbitrary framebuffer, but this maps to hardware displays and their framebuffers. This is just a proof that multiple display APIs are supported, we don't have to actually include it.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Any reason we can't use frame-buffer for both?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

frame-buffer has no way to specify a screen, or which screen.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see.
But I'd much rather have one interface for both.
Wanna open a separate issue or PR to discuss?



/// The raw-display interface is designed for when an application has raw access to the full display framebuffer, such as on an embedded device.
interface raw-display {

enum framebuffer-format {
rgb888,
}

/// Gets information on the connected displays.
displays: func() -> list<display-info>;


record display-info {
/// Internal id for the display, used to connect a grapics-context.
id: u32,
/// An implementation defined identifier of the display. Should be unique.
/// This is so that an application can differentiate e.g. between front and back screens on a device.
name: string,
width: u32,
height: u32,
/// The framebuffer format used.
format: framebuffer-format,
/// Whether the drawing is done in the main framebuffer or in a back buffer.
/// When drawing in a back buffer, blitting is neccessary.
back-buffer: bool,
}

/// Connects a graphics context to a fisplay.
connect-graphics-context: func(context: borrow<graphics-context>, display-id: u32);

/// Swaps the front and back buffer of a display, if there is one.
/// TODO: should this invalidate the grapics-context connection? Since the connected buffer changes.
blit: func(display-id: u32);

}
Loading