On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 13:47 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 12:12 -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Remoting a wayland application is _trivial_. Either to an X or to a wayland view system. It's hard to make wayland remoting less flexible than X over the network, since the natural remoting level (surface updates) is basically stateless unlike X's sixteen complete IPC interfaces, and unlike X you're actually guaranteed that the window surfaces exist and have meaningful content. So you get the long-lusted-for "screen for X" almost for free.
One message ago you were saying that the network transparency concern was a non-issue because GTK/QT apps would support both wayland and X. Here you're saying that wayland will have network transparency?
I'm Adam Jackson. That was Adam Williamson. We look a bit alike over ASCII I suppose, but in meatspace my hair is more likely to be interesting colors.
Also, those two things are not at all incompatible (though ajax, please do correct me if I was wrong in what I wrote, or if I'm wrong in this). It's perfectly possible (and I think likely) both for Wayland to be implemented in such a way that you can use X remoting more or less transparently, *and* for there to be some kind of native remoting protocol for Wayland.