Does The Display Server Matter? The Latest Mir vs. Wayland Argument

[dee.]

Valve recommends using SDL2, wich Valves own games are using.
As SDL2 supports both Wayland and Mir those games can run there without any problem at all.

That's of course assuming that proprietary game studios package their games in a way that they depend on the implementation of SDL2 on the user's computer, instead of just bundling their own static copy of SDL2 with the game - which is something they're probably used to in the windows world.

[Pajn]

Maybe you should tell it? According to Wikipedia there isn't a real difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API#API_and_protocols

As it says on the article you are linking to. An API is an implementation of a protocol.
If you are using an API the underlying protocol doesn't matter, even if it's barrier
gets changed from protobuf over a UNIX socket to mail using pigeon.

That's of course assuming that proprietary game studios package their games in a way that they depend on the implementation of SDL2 on the user's computer, instead of just bundling their own static copy of SDL2 with the game - which is something they're probably used to in the windows world.

If so you could use SDL_DYNAMIC_API

[V10lator]

An API is an implementation of a protocol.

And you're still saying Mir doesn't have a protocol but is using API calls instead?

[Ericg]

And you're still saying Mir doesn't have a protocol but is using API calls instead?

if I remember correctly Mir Compositors depend / include libmir (name might be wrong but its the Mir API library) . Its part of the reason why when Canonical announced Mir they explicitly mentioned that API/ABI are not guaranteed for anything except Unity. If you depend upon libmir and Canonical pushes out an update to libmir that breaks API/ABI then any compositor other than Unity will be unusable until they also push out an update that handles the new API/ABI.

[valeriodean]

Don't the Nvidia propietary drivers support EGL?
Wasn't EGL 1.5 released at the GDC?


I don't see your problem.

Question: there were/are some Wayland-specific stuff added to the EGL in Mesa. Ist this sill required or was it adopted into EGL 1.5?

I don't know the details of the EGL support by the proprietary driver, but do you mean that when those driver will support EGL 1.5 everyone will work out-of-the-box with wayland compositor?

[erendorn]

if I remember correctly Mir Compositors depend / include libmir (name might be wrong but its the Mir API library) . Its part of the reason why when Canonical announced Mir they explicitly mentioned that API/ABI are not guaranteed for anything except Unity. If you depend upon libmir and Canonical pushes out an update to libmir that breaks API/ABI then any compositor other than Unity will be unusable until they also push out an update that handles the new API/ABI.

Wouldn't the same happen if they had a protocol and changed it?

[Pajn]

And you're still saying Mir doesn't have a protocol but is using API calls instead?

Well, Mir does have a protocol but you shouldn't use it as it isn't stable and may get replaced over night.
You shall use the API where they guarantee stability. By doing that you don't have to know anything about
the protocol and they may change it without your program (whatever it is a client or a compositor) breaking.

if I remember correctly Mir Compositors depend / include libmir (name might be wrong but its the Mir API library) . Its part of the reason why when Canonical announced Mir they explicitly mentioned that API/ABI are not guaranteed for anything except Unity. If you depend upon libmir and Canonical pushes out an update to libmir that breaks API/ABI then any compositor other than Unity will be unusable until they also push out an update that handles the new API/ABI.

See my answer to TAXI. If you use the API, as you should, it won't break.

Wouldn't the same happen if they had a protocol and changed it?

Because they guarantee the API and not the protocol they may change the protocol without breaking
anything, as everything outside Mir (even Unity) are supposed to use the API.

[tuubi]

Because they guarantee the API and not the protocol they may change the protocol without breaking
anything, as everything outside Mir (even Unity) are supposed to use the API.

Did Canonical actually commit to a stable API at some point? I remember them stating that there are no guarantees and that they have no (financial, I guess) interest in supporting anything but Unity.

Then again, I haven't exactly been keeping up with Mir as it's pretty much irrelevant for most of us in any case. I tend to skip any news or threads about Ubuntu-specific tech.

[Pajn]

Did Canonical actually commit to a stable API at some point? I remember them stating that there are no guarantees and that they have no (financial, I guess) interest in supporting anything but Unity.

Then again, I haven't exactly been keeping up with Mir as it's pretty much irrelevant for most of us in any case. I tend to skip any news or threads about Ubuntu-specific tech.

Yes they want to keep the API stable (even for there own usage). This has been brought up multiple times on the mailing list.
However they wont be adding features that other compositors may like as they only care about Unity, with that said, Unity
isn't so extremely special so most other DEs would probably find the features enough anyway.

Also by telling people to not use the protocol they aren't held back in any way by having a stable API as
they just can add added features under other functions or namespaces. And if they change an existing feature
they could remap the API so it externally behaves the same anyway.

[TheBlackCat]

Yes they want to keep the API stable (even for there own usage). This has been brought up multiple times on the mailing list.

Did they actually make a commitment to keep the API stable, or is this just a goal they may or may not meet?