My Ideas on Compositors
bacn at zhasha.com
Mon Jan 31 13:50:23 PST 2011
On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 22:37 +0100, Carl-Philip Haensch wrote:
> Zitat von Joakim Sindholt <bacn at zhasha.com>:
> > On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 21:49 +0100, Carl-Philip Haensch wrote:
> >> Zitat von Joakim Sindholt <bacn at zhasha.com>:
> >> >
> >> > What benefit does this approach give over clayland (or similar toolkit
> >> > backends)?
> >> I don't find information about clayland.
> >> What is it, what does it?
> > It's a wayland compositor abstracted by the clutter toolkit.
> > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~krh/clayland/
> > The demo compositor is a good thing and all, but it's not really my
> > impression that it should be used as a foundation for real world
> > compositors, other than the protocol specification part.
> The demo compositor is ment to be light-weight so that awesome-users
> will have no fear to use it. So it's a necessary need to make the demo
> compositor extendable in a way you can add all features you know from
> The plugin API should be the interface between the hard coded C
> compositor and the special effects which have to be aspect oriented
> (AOP is really new i know, but necessary to create features with cross
Why does it have to be the demo compositor? Why can't people simply
write their own compositors instead of using the demo code?
And again, group reply please.
More information about the wayland-devel