2 ms·
> An alternative design would have been to have built Wayland inside X.org and tunnel the new protocol over the existing protocol, and then migrate chunks of fu
by kaba0 3y ago
> An alternative design would have been to have built Wayland inside X.org and tunnel the new protocol over the existing protocol, and then migrate chunks of functionality one at a time
You are looking at it from the wrong direction, though. But otherwise, that’s pretty much what wayland does for backwards compatibility with xwayland — it wraps an x session into a window you can normally use from wayland.
- grandinj 3y agoYes, that is also a valid backwards compatibility choice, although it is an all-or-nothing choice, clients cannot mix and match wayland and X11 functionality. But if they had allowed more of the X11 APIs to be supported via that Xwayland, the transition would be a lot easier. Unfortunately that was shot down, in favour of forcing every new wayland compositor to implement things like remote desktop and screen capture differently.