> There may be other advantages as well, but I think the combination of
> Xrender/Xcomposite/Xdamage is becoming a requirement for a modern window
> manager. More and more apps are starting to expect proper transparency
> support via XComposite, and if you are doing XComposite, you might as well
> use a drawing library that supports the fancy stuff in hardware.
so basically it can be considered as natural evolution, right? don't
get me wrong, i'm not against it, i just want to understand.
Yes. This is the way most of the other window managers are going, and it is
also what the apps are starting to expect.
The other big issue for wmaker is full EWMH compliance. I haven't looked it
this too carefully, but it looks like wmaker is almost there. We are only
missing support for a handful of new atoms.
best would also be of course if they could be made to coexist (a
compile-time option perhaps), but from this point, it's enough if
wmaker1 (even without significant new features and stuff) is just kept
working for some time to come, while wmaker2 (hypothetic scenario)
gets cairo and the candy.
I think making a definite split between wm1 and wm2 is not a bad idea. The move
to cairo and the candy is mainly for the newer apps which are unlikely to run
on older commercial unixes anyway.
p.s. sorry for the late replies, my isp moved mail servers and some of my
messages spent 18 hours in the mail queue.
--
To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
