color: clarify wp_image_description_v1.destroy

Move it up so it's the first defined request. Destruction is such a
fundamental part of any interface.

Make it more explicit on what destructions means. I imagine compositors
to use reference-counted image description implementation objects that
are independent of protocol objects. That is already what 'identity'
event implies. It would be more hassle to make sure that
set_image_description, destroy, commit would actually special-case the
destroy, and we would also need to define what that means.

Signed-off-by: Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.com>
This commit is contained in:
Pekka Paalanen 2023-03-01 13:19:26 +02:00 committed by Sebastian Wick
parent 3fc7b48ce4
commit a5cb9be869

View file

@ -660,6 +660,16 @@
after creation.
</description>
<request name="destroy" type="destructor">
<description summary="destroy the image description">
Destroy this object. It is safe to destroy a 'failed' object.
Destroying a wp_image_description_v1 object has no side-effects, not
even if a wp_color_management_surface_v1.set_image_description has
not yet been followed by a wl_surface.commit.
</description>
</request>
<enum name="error">
<description summary="protocol errors"/>
@ -817,13 +827,5 @@
<arg name="eexp" type="uint" summary="the exponent * 10000"/>
</event>
<request name="destroy" type="destructor">
<description summary="destroy the image description">
Destroy the wp_image_description_v1 object.
Destroying the wp_image_description_v1 which is active on a surface or an
output does not change the image description of those objects.
</description>
</request>
</interface>
</protocol>