-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 04/02/2014 04:44 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
On 2 April 2014 16:04, Rahul Sundaram <metherid(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
>>
>> I originally missed this line in Rahul's email:
>>> Other apps can use the compatibility layer called XWayland."
>>
>> But did read his reply to Lee:
>>>> Hm, not really useful when it doesn`t work with existing
>>>> WMs ...
>>> That would be the responsibility of the WM's themselves.
>>
>> Which might have been better reiterating the point about the
>> compatibility layer.
>
>
> Reiterating doesn't help much when people jump to conclusions
> rather than read through the details which are widely available
> online but in any case, the compatibility layer is primary
> designed for running X apps that haven't migrated over but window
> managers are rather special and tend to use very specific
> functionality from X rather than rely mostly on abstraction
> layer via GTK or Qt which themselves can work with Wayland. So
> they really should be ported over and that is the responsibility
> of the WM developers. You could in theory be running a full
> desktop environment over the compatibility layer but it isn't a
> good idea since performance will likely suffer and it isn't
> designed for that.
>
I would love to spend all my free time reading up about every new
project, but it's not going to happen. Sorry typo, "I would loathe
to..." Since you and Stephen Gallagher have now said somewhat
contradictory things I'm left no wiser than when we started. I also
don't know whether to take the statement about performance at face
value or whether to imagine it's conjecture, since compatibility
layers can be quite transparent. (And also since more modern WMs
incorporate scripting engines we seem to be at the point where we
say performance limits for WM aren't a worry any more.)
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlM9ZycACgkQeiVVYja6o6PT1ACeIA2rS4JxyMLBr93K7wZSuLs/
U4AAnjgfR4QUi+clGEu6aYBPrfEvXztq
=rauf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----