On 12/19/2016 03:04 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > We very deliberately avoid defining any "standard" Wayland interfaces > for configuring a compositor, because every compositor is different. > With X11, you had the one single X server implementation and no other. > On Wayland, every compositor is an individual, just like every X11 > window manager is. > > I do not want to waste time in designing a "standard configuration > interface" when the realistic expectation is that none of the major > DEs' compositor will be implementing it. They already have their own > tailor-made ways. As a case study one could look at the feature set of > xrandr tool.
At first glance, that comes across as off-point and shirking responsibility, where Weston boastfully promotes itself as "*the* reference implementation of a Wayland compositor, and a useful compositor in its own right". Where is *Weston's* "pixel perfect" Color Management System? Unless the argument is convincingly made that *nothing* will ever be required from the Wayland protocol in order for any compositor to implement a "pixel perfect" CMS, on its own, then 'deliberately avoid[ing] defining any "standard" Wayland interfaces for configuring a compositor' is just "throwing a monkey wrench" into the conversation. To convincingly make that argument, create the Weston "pixel perfect" CMS, and demonstrate that nothing CMS related was required from the Wayland protocol. What is the design outline of that Wayland-protocol-free CMS? _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
