4 ms·
Umm, no? Wayland does giving out pointers to buffers, compositing, and input redirection. These all strongly depend on each other -- you cannot correctly redir
by Tuna-Fish 15y ago
Umm, no?
Wayland does giving out pointers to buffers, compositing, and input redirection. These all strongly depend on each other -- you cannot correctly redirect input without knowing the exact location of everything on the screen, you cannot composite without having access to the buffers. Any attempt to modularize the parts further would only lead to false independence -- no matter how you organize them, the parts are going to have to intimately know of each other to work.
A minimal Wayland implementation is "less than 1000 lines." I really cannot imagine what else could be cut from it.
Wayland does not do clipboards, rendering, fonts, networking, drivers, or anything else that makes the X server source tree be hundreds of megabytes.
- ori_b 15y ago> Wayland does not do clipboards, rendering, fonts, networking, drivers, or anything else that makes the X server source tree be hundreds of megabytes. X doesn't do clipboards, drivers, or fonts. Network transparency does not affect the code size. And the source tree is approximately 25 to 30 megabytes. It contains 7 different X servers (Xdmx, Xvfb, Xnest, Xquartz, Xwin, Kdrive and Xorg). The server you're talking about contains 6 megabytes of machine dependent code. In fact, all the infrastructure that Wayland depends on is the infrastructure that X uses.