On 2 April 2014 14:26, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Joe Zeff <joe(a)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