On 2 April 2014 14:26, Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Joe Zeff <j...@zeff.us> writes: >> >>> On 04/01/2014 09:49 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>>> That would be the responsibility of the WM's themselves. WM's >>>> have to add support. Not the other way around as you seem to >>>> think. >>> >>> Which is why I pointed out that the question was if fvwm works >>> with Wayland, not the other way around. >> > This means that in order to get all these capabilities, the individual > Window Managers will need to adapt to the new API. If they do not, > there is effort to provide a compatibility layer called XWayland that > will allow it to emulate the behavior of a classic X Windows > environment. This is still a work in progress (and is not perfect), > but it's an effort to ease this migration. > I know you weren't reply to me, but this is really the point I wanted to make: to take advantage of Wayland it makes absolute sense that applications will need to use a new API. But breaking WMs, toolkits and applications (whether they use toolkits or X directly doesn't much matter if they don't work) and saying it's their fault for not updating isn't really a goer, a compatibility layer is a must. If the new API is so much better people will move eventually if the new features are needed. If they're not needed then forcing a change is just creating unnecessary work. -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
