Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Focus Of Wayland's Weston Compositor

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Focus Of Wayland's Weston Compositor

    Phoronix: The Focus Of Wayland's Weston Compositor

    Kristian Høgsberg has clarified the scope and goals of Weston, Wayland's reference compositor. Now that Weston has become somewhat of its own desktop environment, Kristian has clarified its intentions to benefit future patches...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM1NjE

  • #2
    Minimize

    I want to see window minimize support.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by uid313 View Post
      I want to see window minimize support.
      Out-of-tree patches are available for minimize. I want to see it too, but people forget that Wayland promises binary compatibility from 1.0 up until 2.0 (and maybe even beyond 2.0 ...) so anything that gets added to mainline has to be RIGHT the first time because its gonna be there FOREVER. So I'm not blaming them for going slow on minimize to make sure they've got all their bases covered.

      Comment


      • #4
        @Ericg: Do you actually succeed to get wayland going on Arch? Starting weston under X is no problem with the 'weston' command. Starting it via 'weston-launch' fails somehow; the same happens to me as described here on the Arch forums.
        Originally posted by giucam
        You must build mesa with --disable-gallium-llvm to fix/hide that problem.
        is mentioned as a solution, but won't this have any drawbacks?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Ericg View Post
          Out-of-tree patches are available for minimize. I want to see it too, but people forget that Wayland promises binary compatibility from 1.0 up until 2.0 (and maybe even beyond 2.0 ...) so anything that gets added to mainline has to be RIGHT the first time because its gonna be there FOREVER. So I'm not blaming them for going slow on minimize to make sure they've got all their bases covered.
          They should say that major version numbers are incompatible.
          This way you can redo stuff if you get it wrong, which is worth a lot.
          Then X.Y version numbers have Y releases as new feature releases where everything of the same X must be compatible.

          Also will it be possible with Wayland and Weston to remove a graphics driver, temporarily use software rendering and install a new graphics driver without rebooting?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Nuc!eoN View Post
            @Ericg: Do you actually succeed to get wayland going on Arch? Starting weston under X is no problem with the 'weston' command. Starting it via 'weston-launch' fails somehow; the same happens to me as described here on the Arch forums.

            is mentioned as a solution, but won't this have any drawbacks?

            I got it to succeed on an intel graphics laptop 2months ago or so via weston-launch. Maybe something has broken aince then? what's the arch wiki say for wayland?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ericg View Post
              I got it to succeed on an intel graphics laptop 2months ago or so via weston-launch. Maybe something has broken aince then? what's the arch wiki say for wayland?
              I tried today with the latest version with intel drivers. Weston-launch still works for me.

              Comment


              • #8
                Any of you early adopters tried Enlightenment with pure wayland?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                  I got it to succeed on an intel graphics laptop 2months ago or so via weston-launch. Maybe something has broken aince then? what's the arch wiki say for wayland?
                  I tried with v1.1. It happens on my Laptop and PC, both are radeon cards. The Arch wiki isn't very informative for now. On Wayland irc they say it's a bug that happened to many users.
                  Would you retry with the latest release? Shouldn't be much hassle :P

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                    ... but people forget that Wayland promises binary compatibility from 1.0 up until 2.0 (and maybe even beyond 2.0 ...) ...
                    Promising too much binary compatibility would be a dumb rookie mistake.
                    People are fallible there for making a system where everything has to be correct the first time or we are stuck forever with things is of course obviously very, extremely questionable.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Minimization message on phoronix:
                      http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTMyMjQ

                      Some interesting comments about it:
                      http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...176#post318176
                      Last edited by plonoma; 04-20-2013, 11:21 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by plonoma View Post
                        Promising too much binary compatibility would be a dumb rookie mistake.
                        Right, because of course no established projects have binary compatibility promises...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          You have to be able to improve the API and ABI.
                          Sometimes this means changing things.
                          A good version system is much easier to get right then a whole ABI, API of Wayland and Weston.

                          Promising too much compatibility is very bad for technical reasons.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by plonoma View Post
                            You have to be able to improve the API and ABI.
                            Sometimes this means changing things.
                            A good version system is much easier to get right then a whole ABI, API of Wayland and Weston.

                            Promising too much compatibility is very bad for technical reasons.
                            API compatibility AFAIK is one of the reasons why Wayland development takes a long time. The developers want to make sure that the Wayland API is good enough so that they don't have to break any APIs in the future.

                            Of course they can ADD API's, but they want to make sure exiting ones work.

                            And for very good reasons. It would be a disaster for leagacy apps if the display server broke it's API every week...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by nerdopolis View Post
                              API compatibility AFAIK is one of the reasons why Wayland development takes a long time. The developers want to make sure that the Wayland API is good enough so that they don't have to break any APIs in the future.

                              Of course they can ADD API's, but they want to make sure exiting ones work.

                              And for very good reasons. It would be a disaster for leagacy apps if the display server broke it's API every week...
                              Good thing Wayland isn't developed by the GNOME team then...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X