-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 04/02/2014 09:42 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
On 2 April 2014 14:26, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>> Joe Zeff <joe(a)zeff.us> writes:
>>
>>> On 04/01/2014 09:49 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>>> That would be the responsibility of the WM's themselves.
>>>> WM's have to add support. Not the other way around as you
>>>> seem to think.
>>>
>>> Which is why I pointed out that the question was if fvwm
>>> works with Wayland, not the other way around.
>>
> This means that in order to get all these capabilities, the
> individual Window Managers will need to adapt to the new API. If
> they do not, there is effort to provide a compatibility layer
> called XWayland that will allow it to emulate the behavior of a
> classic X Windows environment. This is still a work in progress
> (and is not perfect), but it's an effort to ease this migration.
>
I know you weren't reply to me, but this is really the point I
wanted to make: to take advantage of Wayland it makes absolute
sense that applications will need to use a new API. But breaking
WMs, toolkits and applications (whether they use toolkits or X
directly doesn't much matter if they don't work) and saying it's
their fault for not updating isn't really a goer, a compatibility
layer is a must. If the
I don't think anyone has ever said that, except the baseless
accusations made in this very thread :)
As I said, XWayland exists for this very purpose. It's not perfect,
but neither is the rest of Wayland, yet. This need is not being
ignored by anyone.
new API is so much better people will move eventually if the new
features are needed. If they're not needed then forcing a change
is just creating unnecessary work.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlM8GTMACgkQeiVVYja6o6N7kwCfb05AO+wMFz5ASSfmnz21+gXa
wCUAnR2JeIJ8RktXrNEauMjk6KTPyR25
=HyRv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----