On 2 April 2014 15:05, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 04/02/2014 09:42 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
> 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.
Thanks. When I read, "there is an effort to provide a compatibility
layer", my usual interpretation is it's only loosely related to the
project in question, rather than a core concern.
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.
--
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk