4 ms·

It's a little bit more than just culture. The Wayland protocol has made the compositor, window manager and window server concepts a single thing whereas in X th

It's a little bit more than just culture. The Wayland protocol has made the compositor, window manager and window server concepts a single thing whereas in X those are provided by different applications talking a standardized protocol. It did that for good reason and there are technical ways to then implement those parts with common code still. But since that sharing is not enforced by the protocol itself there's still duplication of things that in the Xorg world were more stabilized with no real competing implementations.

d110af5ccf 6y ago
> more than just culture. The Wayland protocol has made the compositor, window manager and window server concepts a single thing I realize that any implementation of the Wayland protocol must of necessity involve compositing somewhere in the stack simply due to the nature of the protocol itself. And I also realize that all current Wayland "compositors" happen to roll all this functionality into a single monolithic implementation. But I honestly don't understand what's stopping someone from implementing a modular Wayland display server which you plug a conforming compositor into (with the caveat that, unlike X11, such a module would not be optional). Is there some technical issue I'm unaware of that would prevent a standalone display server implementation speaking the Wayland protocol from delegating all the necessary behavior via indirection?