Hi there, On 29 July 2013 13:35, Michael Forney <mfor...@mforney.org> wrote: > 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.
I consider putting something like this on my TODO list for *after* the sta.li release... Best regards, Anselm
