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. > > 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. > So would it be a rooted VNC? If so, that simply sucks. The rdp style is better, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it is going to be hit or miss in different toolkits the same way that GUI/TUI admin tools are always "kept in sync". The truth is, I think this could be an interesting project, and I think most people are raising their concerns now to make sure that should it become a successful project we're not stuck with either VNC or local-only. Brian > - ajax > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
