On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 13:47 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: > 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. Also, those two things are not at all incompatible (though ajax, please do correct me if I was wrong in what I wrote, or if I'm wrong in this). It's perfectly possible (and I think likely) both for Wayland to be implemented in such a way that you can use X remoting more or less transparently, *and* for there to be some kind of native remoting protocol for Wayland. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
