Re: mutter plans for 3.22

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:01 AM Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi gmail com> wrote:

On 22 March 2016 at 17:51, Sriram Ramkrishna <sri ramkrishna me> wrote:

>> 1) put clutter and cogl in mutter
>  Is clutter still viable?  I was under the impression that we were going to
> sunset it as it had some limitations?  Are there concerns from folks
> regarding clutter's future?

Clutter as a stand alone library would continue to exist in its
current form, just like Cogl; what Matthias is referring to is putting
a copy of both Cogl and Clutter inside Mutter, so that it can access
the internals of the code instead of using the public API, to avoid
cutting gnome-shell sized holes in the layers in order to do stuff
that only the compositor needs to do.

Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated!



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]