On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 22:37 +0100, Carl-Philip Haensch wrote: > Zitat von Joakim Sindholt <[email protected]>: > > > On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 21:49 +0100, Carl-Philip Haensch wrote: > >> Zitat von Joakim Sindholt <[email protected]>: > >> > >> > > >> > What benefit does this approach give over clayland (or similar toolkit > >> > backends)? > >> > >> I don't find information about clayland. > >> What is it, what does it? > > > > It's a wayland compositor abstracted by the clutter toolkit. > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~krh/clayland/ > > > > The demo compositor is a good thing and all, but it's not really my > > impression that it should be used as a foundation for real world > > compositors, other than the protocol specification part. > > > > The demo compositor is ment to be light-weight so that awesome-users > will have no fear to use it. So it's a necessary need to make the demo > compositor extendable in a way you can add all features you know from > compiz&co. > The plugin API should be the interface between the hard coded C > compositor and the special effects which have to be aspect oriented > (AOP is really new i know, but necessary to create features with cross > cuts) >
Why does it have to be the demo compositor? Why can't people simply write their own compositors instead of using the demo code? And again, group reply please. _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
