Some of my thoughts on input for wayland
tiago.vignatti at nokia.com
Tue Jan 25 11:45:30 PST 2011
(this is going off topic.. oh well)
On 01/25/2011 12:31 AM, ext Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> The "input_device" interface describes the entire input protocol as it
> is now. Obviously, there's work to do, right now it's sort of like
> core input + mpx. But the point is, we can phase this out in favour
> of "input_device2", which can completely replace the "input_device"
> interface. Then we can keep "input_device" around for a few years
> while we port the world to "input_device2" and then eventually dump
> If X had let us phase out core fonts, core rendering and core
> input as extensions, I think X would have lasted even longer. It was
> one of the mistakes in X I didn't want to carry over.
Besides it, the main contributors of Xorg are enterprise distributions,
in which the gross income is generated by costumers who have sortof
life-time support. And, these costumers have applications relying on old
toolkits (a la Motif/Xt), running on fairly old machines and they don't
care about any eye-candy GUI (so no need for hw accelerator mechanisms).
Therefore an X11 implementation that evolves slowly, steady and which
supports things from two decades ago is ideal for them. This is todays
Xorg and its way of development.
I see that letting Wayland protocol more loose (e.g. not defining any
core interfaces) is the way forward also. On the other hand, for the
development process, some very precise mechanism for deprecate old
interfaces has to be defined in the implementation.
More information about the wayland-devel