Re: Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions


On 31 March 2016 at 00:16, Drew DeVault <sir cmpwn com> wrote:
Simply because xrandr was/is a poorly implemented mess doesn't mean that
we are going to end up making a poorly implemented mess. We have the
benefit of hindsight. After all, xorg is a poorly implemented mess but
we still made Wayland, didn't we? (Though some could argue that we've
just ended up with a well implemented mess...)

X and Wayland protocols have very different design principles guiding
them. X (often by necessity) exposes as much as possible of its
internal workings to clients, and allows total external manipulation.
That's not the case for Wayland, so what you're proposing is a
significant departure.


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