On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:33:18 -0200 Tiago Vignatti <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 06:12 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:13:04 -0200 > > Tiago Vignatti <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I don't see a problem on having xwayland typical applications linked > >> with "desktop" style of interfaces. X11 and its WM standards are > >> flexible enough for building different graphics interfaces and the > >> wl_shell is the best at the moment to fitting them. > > > > Is calling the wl_shell interfaces limited to the X WM, or does the X > > server call them? If they are limited to X WM, then it is very nice, > > because for a different Wayland shell, you would have to have a > > different X WM anyway. > > > > If the X server calls them, it could be awkward to extend to non-desktop > > systems. > > > > Could that work? Does this make sense to tie Wayland shell with X WM, > > and leave the X server things as shell and WM agnostic? Could everything > > shell related be in the private X WM interface, including the > > wl_shell_surface:set_xwayland? > > > > Or maybe that is how you already designed it, but I'm too lazy to look > > it up in the patches. ;-) > > scratch this all. Problem solved :) > > set_xwayland request was not used at all by any client in fact. It's > only being used by xwayland compositor's internal glue > (window-manager.c), which is responsible for combining the information > from X server and xwm, and mapping accordingly on the screen. Check the > patch: > > http://paste.ubuntu.com/1439867/ > > So two issues were raised on the review here: 1. set_xwayland exposed to > regular Wayland clients and 2. the core protocol being modified. Both > seems solved now. Ok, will you rework the series to not need any changes in wayland.xml? Thanks, pq _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
