Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: XDG-Shell Patches Get Moving For Wayland

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,381

    Default XDG-Shell Patches Get Moving For Wayland

    Phoronix: XDG-Shell Patches Get Moving For Wayland

    After a lot of mailing list discussions amongst developers that have a stake in Wayland and early patches sent out, the latest xdg-shell patches were formally distributed today on the developers' mailing list. The xdg-shell is a new protocol living outside of the core Wayland protocol...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,734

    Default

    May i ask why a protocol for something as important as a desktop was not one of the priorities (if that is the case) and there is a need for replacing the existing protocol??

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default Don't forget Enlightenment!

    I'm an Enlightenment developer, so you can say that the protocol has support and input from Enlightenment developers too!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antognolli View Post
    I'm an Enlightenment developer, so you can say that the protocol has support and input from Enlightenment developers too!
    You are right, especially because, I guess, the Qt 5 porting efforts leave the KDE devs without too much time to help in xdg-shell development, isn't it? I seen just Martin to appear in the wayland's mailing list to discuss the CSD/SSD part. Correct me if I forgot something.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Oslo
    Posts
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    May i ask why a protocol for something as important as a desktop was not one of the priorities (if that is the case) and there is a need for replacing the existing protocol??
    Because X.org has served, and continues to serve, the desktop usecases pretty OK, unlike the mobile/embedded usecases. For embedded there is also less need for full-fledged, general solutions (the most complex), one can often accept quite basic features compare to desktop - hence it is an easier starting-point. As a last thing, there is very little money in desktop Linux compared to embedded (and sever but that is less relevant here).

    You could interpret this as "desktop is less important".

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    May i ask why a protocol for something as important as a desktop was not one of the priorities (if that is the case) and there is a need for replacing the existing protocol??
    Who said it was not one of the priorities? If it needs many iterations to get done, it is probably best outside of the core protocol. Otherwise, you'd probably end up with an X11 situation, where you made a lot of assumptions in the core protocol which became too obsolete to be workable.
    Also, if this is actually equivalent to EWMH, this was outside of the core protocol for X, and was developed quite some time later. This kind of hints are really desktop oriented, so adding it to the core would just mean bloat in mobile use cases, so that's another reason to keep it separate. wl_shell should only contain what's common to both use cases, IMO.
    Ultimately, they probably waited so the actual interested parties (DE makers) get a say, so it is a better product for them. For this, they need to actually be porting it to know what improvements are needed. Another, extra reason, might be related to the fact some of the most powerful backers are interested in mobile, and everyone scratches their own itches first.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •