Qt 5.1 To Feature Improved Support For Wayland

[Akka]

There is a way to tell that applications are not responding (or otherwise something like a busy cursor wouldn't be possible).

It's entirely legal (and was proposed on the wayland list) for the compositor (Weston, KWin, etc.) to override the default appearance of the app in that case.

That allows the compositor to stick custom menus, or draw it's own titlebar + buttons on top of the hung app, and the compositor is free to force close, minimize, help drag the window, etc. to it's hearts content.

I don't have a link, but i'm sure you can google to find it if you want.

I think it work something like that on windows. It works but at least on windows 7 it give some sort of alien feeling when the application misbehave. In linux today with client side yada a frozen application has a more native behaviour.

[Nobu]

Qt, not QT.

Learn to write please.

Learn to write, please. Seems to me he knows how to write just fine--although, he may not necessarily know how the name of a certain toolkit (Qt) is written, or is otherwise lazy.

[smitty3268]

It would be helpful if you pointed him in the right direction, with a link. How will it work?

There is a way to tell that applications are not responding (or otherwise something like a busy cursor wouldn't be possible).

It's entirely legal (and was proposed on the wayland list) for the compositor (Weston, KWin, etc.) to override the default appearance of the app in that case.

That allows the compositor to stick custom menus, or draw it's own titlebar + buttons on top of the hung app, and the compositor is free to force close, minimize, help drag the window, etc. to it's hearts content.

I don't have a link, but i'm sure you can google to find it if you want.

[pingufunkybeat]

Please do some research. This is just plain false.

It would be helpful if you pointed him in the right direction, with a link. How will it work?

[smitty3268]

Client-side decorations also mean that the application is the only one to decide what happens with a window. So when I load a huge file into an applications and while processing the file the UI becomes unresponsive, I won't even be able to minimize it.

Please do some research. This is just plain false.

[Nobu]

In other words, if you use an efl application in Unity, it'll integrate poorly. Oh wait, it would anyway.

What it really means, is if you use [insert wayland incompatible toolkit here] in Unity, you'll get a rootless X window which is nested inside the wayland compositor, and will have the same decorations as all of your other windows (the compositor which contains the X window, which is part of the toolkit you're using (GTK, Qt, etc.), will use your current theme for that).

The only thing which may be off would be the color scheme and the actual application feel (because the wayland incompatible toolkit may not utilize the same theme library). That would be, and is, the case now anyway. Hopefully it will be improved in the future, since color schemes can be relatively simple to represent. It'd be up to the toolkits' developers to decide whether it's worth their time, though.

Hopefully, any toolkits which implement the wayland api will also implement this ethereal new theme specification. I've heard it theorized a few times, and I believe it's possible, but I haven't heard any news recently about it. Here's hoping. ^_^

[MartinN]

So GNOME Shell implemented a usage metaphor that makes minimizing unnecessary. Therefore it's not a completely outlandish assumption that GNOME applications for Wayland will draw a titlebar that won't have a minimize button.
Absolutely NO Xfce, Plasma, Unity, etc. would want to use a GNOME application that cannot be minimized. Unity users wouldn't want to use applications with titlebar buttons on the righthand (i.e. the ?wrong?) side.

Client-side decorations also mean that the application is the only one to decide what happens with a window. So when I load a huge file into an applications and while processing the file the UI becomes unresponsive, I won't even be able to minimize it.


Stupid Wayland takes one of the most useful X11 features away and other projects should fix that? What if they don't? ?Too bad, you?re stuck with Wayland now? or what?
IMO it's evident that Intel develops Wayland for tablets, smartphones and other devices (smart TVs, IVI,?) that don't have windows and that's fine but then Intel should not act if Wayland was for desktops as well.
No one is seriously denying that X accumulated tons of cruft over the decades but attempting to replace it by even throwing X?s good aspects out of the window is absolutely retarded.

"Awesomeness" - please go search for "Unresponsive applications" on the wayland list to see the reasoning behind client side decorations before you go calling the people as well as their ideas/product "stupid"...

[Awesomeness]

1 app could look the same regardless the DE and toolkit(true for widget and decoration) just drawing directly in any form you like

So GNOME Shell implemented a usage metaphor that makes minimizing unnecessary. Therefore it's not a completely outlandish assumption that GNOME applications for Wayland will draw a titlebar that won't have a minimize button.
Absolutely NO Xfce, Plasma, Unity, etc. would want to use a GNOME application that cannot be minimized. Unity users wouldn't want to use applications with titlebar buttons on the righthand (i.e. the ?wrong?) side.

Client-side decorations also mean that the application is the only one to decide what happens with a window. So when I load a huge file into an applications and while processing the file the UI becomes unresponsive, I won't even be able to minimize it.

if DE enviroments agree in using a common drawing API that interfaces with Wayland protocol(cairo, GL, etc) to draw widgets/decorations

Stupid Wayland takes one of the most useful X11 features away and other projects should fix that? What if they don't? ?Too bad, you?re stuck with Wayland now? or what?
IMO it's evident that Intel develops Wayland for tablets, smartphones and other devices (smart TVs, IVI,?) that don't have windows and that's fine but then Intel should not act if Wayland was for desktops as well.
No one is seriously denying that X accumulated tons of cruft over the decades but attempting to replace it by even throwing X?s good aspects out of the window is absolutely retarded.

[pingufunkybeat]

I think some people here might be misguided in that they think CSD means the toolkits have to draw the decorations.
The way it will most likely turn out to be is that everyone will use some sort of 'libdeco' to do the drawing instead,
actually unifying decorations even across compositors, something that wasn't even possible under X.

You know what?

That is something I could live with!

[Ancurio]

I think some people here might be misguided in that they think CSD means the toolkits have to draw the decorations.
The way it will most likely turn out to be is that everyone will use some sort of 'libdeco' to do the drawing instead,
actually unifying decorations even across compositors, something that wasn't even possible under X.