Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane
From: Scott Moreau <oreaus-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w <at> public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: Compiz is Dead - Beryl Lives Again? Enter - Northfield/Norwood
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.freedesktop.wayland.devel
Date: Monday 25th March 2013 21:12:47 UTC (over 4 years ago)
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Thiago Macieira
 wrote:
> On segunda-feira, 25 de março de 2013 14.45.21, Scott Moreau wrote:
>> Northfield stands on the shoulders of giants, years worth of work and
>> history to get to the point where we are today. It has been some 8
>> years since compiz has exposed these many restrictions found in X
>> protocol. We want certain effects to be readily possible and are not
>> inherently restricted by certain caveats of the display server
>> protocol. I expect that wayland core protocol will be added to support
>> the basic functionalities expected as part of todays Linux Desktop. I
>> believe that there wont be any problems with this particular effect
>> and others. However, I want to make absolutely sure of that.
>
> Scott,
>
> What we're asking is that you avoid forking Wayland at all. Don't change
the
> library, don't change the default extensions (including wl_shell), don't
add
> new default extensions. You said you want to avoid incompatible changes:
well,
> avoiding the fork also avoids the temptation.
>
> Try to do your changes in a different extension. Copy the current
wl_shell into
> a new one and modify it to your heart's desire. If, at the end of your
> experiment, you conclude that the current wl_shell is flawed by design,
then
> Wayland should deprecate it and adopt yours. On the other hand, if we
conclude
> that your improvements can be added incrementally, we can simply do
exactly
> that.

This sounds great but this is not the solution I have come up with.

>
> I'll ping you on IRC to discuss this. Several people have asked you to do
it
> and you have either missed the point or failed to explain to us why the
fork
> is necessary.
>
> PS: compiz is also a bad example. It might have been a great experiment
and
> resulted in improvements in most existing WMs, but it was a horrible WM.
It
> had bugs with its core WM functionality that went unfixed for years.

I think compiz is in fact the very model example of what a compositing
manager for the Linux Desktop should be. Yes, it has had many bugs
over the years but many of these are because the X protocol is
extremely difficult to work with and inherently problematic. We can do
the same things now, but this time, uninhibited, thanks to the driver
situation. I am sorry that you feel this is unnecessary but I
disagree.

- Scott

>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>   Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
>
> _______________________________________________
> wayland-devel mailing list
> wayland-devel-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
>
 
CD: 4ms