On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:47:49 +0200, Silvan Jegen <s.je...@gmail.com> wrote: > So the reason you would not want dwm to be a shell plugin for Weston is > that Weston is too focused on fancy modern features, correct?
Eh, maybe I am being a bit too hard on Weston. It just seems to be growing quite steadily which scares me and I wasn't thrilled with it overall. > Implementing a proxy wl_shell for this hypothetical blitting compositor > and having dwm as a separate process communicating with it would be > another possible approach. Yeah, that's what I tried to describe. -- Michael Forney <mfor...@mforney.org>
