-----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@xxxxxxxxx> 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----- -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
