On 3 April 2014 14:50, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I don't think we said anything contradictory at all. I pointed out
that the Wayland developers are including a compatibility layer called
XWayland that provides a backwards-compatible interface for
applications and window managers that are designed for X-Windows.
Rahul accurately pointed out that the nature of a compatibility
wrapper is such that it would never have the same real-world
performance as a pure implementation (such as x.org) and as such if
window managers (which tend to use far more of the low-level API than
applications do) want ideal performance, it is in their best interest
to port to the new Wayland code instead of relying on the X-Windows
compatibility.
In their best interest if needed. But you didn't try to claim it's the
*responsibility* of projects to change to Wayland.
--
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk