wayland implementation conformance
tiago.vignatti at nokia.com
Wed Jan 26 05:22:38 PST 2011
I hijacked this comment which Kristian made in the other email thread;
my comments are inline.
On 01/24/2011 09:30 PM, ext Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
> Once of the things that X got right was the extension model. Wayland
> takes it one step further by making everything an extension: the only
> thing that's fixed in the Wayland protocol is an interface for
> discovering other interfaces. If it turns out that we need to update
> the input model, we have versioning built in for incremental updates,
> and we can add an entire new model if we need to start from scratch.
So what defines exactly a Wayland implementation which is conformant
with the protocol then?
Let's say I don't care about drm_interface and my implementation works
okay without it. Does my software is called Wayland then? Nevertheless,
in this case, I won't be able to connect the same clients from such
implementation on some other Wayland server that relies on DRM. So if we
target interoperability between clients and server, then I guess we will
want to define hardly a few interfaces.
More information about the wayland-devel