The Focus Of Wayland's Weston Compositor

[plonoma]

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.

The issue is around that problems arise, mistakes can be made.
Taking great care in designing things is a good protection to avoid problems but is not a guarantee things are perfect and will never have to be redesigned.

@Darxus
Thank you for resolving the speculation.
It's very nice to hear some information about the version stuff.

[Darxus]

The protocol has versioning stuff so that they can make changes without breaking backward compatibility. A lot of thought seems to have gone into it.

Calm down with all the speculation.

[dee.]

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...

[nerdopolis]

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...

[plonoma]

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.

[TheBlackCat]

Promising too much binary compatibility would be a dumb rookie mistake.

Right, because of course no established projects have binary compatibility promises...

[plonoma]

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

[plonoma]

... 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.

[Nuc!eoN]

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

[89c51]

Any of you early adopters tried Enlightenment with pure wayland?