On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 12:12 -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > Remoting a wayland application is _trivial_. Either to an X or to a > > wayland view system. It's hard to make wayland remoting less flexible > > than X over the network, since the natural remoting level (surface > > updates) is basically stateless unlike X's sixteen complete IPC > > interfaces, and unlike X you're actually guaranteed that the window > > surfaces exist and have meaningful content. So you get the > > long-lusted-for "screen for X" almost for free. > > One message ago you were saying that the network transparency concern > was a non-issue because GTK/QT apps would support both wayland and X. > Here you're saying that wayland will have network transparency? I'm Adam Jackson. That was Adam Williamson. We look a bit alike over ASCII I suppose, but in meatspace my hair is more likely to be interesting colors. And I'm saying you can get the network remoting effect you like in X, in Wayland. It's not built into the local Wayland rendering system, but there are both trivial ways to add it (vnc-like) and complicated ways to add it (rdp-like) and both will work. - ajax
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
