On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 03:28:28PM +0100, Eckehard Berns wrote: > I might be wrong, but my biggest fear is that using Wayland means that > I'm getting the current desktop paradigm shoved down my throat. If I > understand this correctly something like dwm would be implemented in the > compositor (for the window placement) and all clients at the same time > (window decorations--or the lack thereof--are part of each client). It's > not a simple program on the side any more.
Yes, that's what I got from the article too. Which would mean that a dwm Wayland version would basically need to implement the Wayland API. Meaning it would probably need to be rather more than 2000 LOC. I do however think Wayland has a lot of promise; generally the way it works seems to make a lot of sense and sounds pretty easy to deal with. > My guess is that the Wayland protocol will get bloated pretty quickly > after the first release, since everyone will want their part of X back. This is indeed a big concern. The mention of protocol expansion for popup window support worried me too. Hopefully such horrors can be restricted to some sort of braindead "optional" stuff which can be safely ignored. On the one hand, working on adding a dwm compositor thing to Wayland soon would be good, as we could have some sway when people suggest absurd extensions to the protocol. On the other, it's early and things will probably change quite a bit, and it'd be a lot of work. But it's all hand-waving anyway, I have neither the skills or time to work on such a thing. Nick
