2013/11/18 Neil Roberts <n...@linux.intel.com> > Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> writes: > > > Make it simpler: all clients MUST be able to draw decorations. That's > what > > Wayland up until now requires anyway. > > I think it's a shame to throw out the idea of making the policy be that > clients are allowed to expect SSD if they don't want to draw decorations > themselves. Requiring CSD support only makes it simpler for compositor > developers, but it adds a lot of burden on things like SDL, glut and > applications that really just want a space to render GL content into. > > I guess you could make a toolkit-agnostic decorations library using > subsurfaces that these types of applications can use. However I don't > think that will solve the consistency issue because most game-type > applications will want to bundle all of their dependencies so they will > end up wanting to bundle this library. The consistency will then break > when the distro updates its version of the library. >
AFAIK SDL2 already dlsym's all necessary Xlib + extension libraries at runtime anyway, so going the route of a standardized decorations library wouldn't really hurt the consistency. Not sure about glut, but on the other hand, which game bundles the required X11 libraries with it? I think none, because those are regarded as part of the system and bundling your own would break a lot of things. I think a standardized decorations library could be regarded as "just part of the system" in the same way. Jonas
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
