Please Don't Use Cleint Side Window Decorations

microcai microcai at
Wed Nov 17 02:28:03 PST 2010

I guess  wayland just  *do not* want to render *anything*. Just composite
composite composite composite composite composite composite

2010/11/16 Fabian Henze <flyser42 at>

> Hello,
> On Tuesday, 16 Nov 2010, 01:22:42-UTC, Dana Jansens wrote:
> > I think it is important to point out that this conversation has been
> > predicated entirely on the idea that window decorations and window
> > managers are the same thing.
> >
> > Window management is - at its core - a filter for focus and window
> > manipulation requests.  It does not require that the WM also draw the
> > window decorations.  A window can initiate an move/resize just as well
> > as the WM itself can, via a request to the WM.
> Could you elaborate, why this makes such a big difference? While I am aware
> of
> this distinction, I don't think it changes the situation at all.
> > I think it would be a
> > big step to make this separation clear from the start, and have window
> > decorations separate from the WM functionality, wherever they end up.
> The thing I don't understand about this whole discussion is: How would this
> be
> a big step? Why would you want to put this kind of logic in the client?
> I see numerous issues (please correct me if they are actually non-issues):
> 1. advanced WM features won't work, like: disallow fullscreen for certain
> windows, always maximize a certain window, resize and move using
> user-defined
> hotkeys, snap to window borders.
> 2. I just don't believe that GTK, Qt and all the minor toolkits will agree
> on
> standards for window decoration and behaviour. That would make the linux
> desktop even more inconsistent than it is now.
> 3. Freezing clients, remote clients with a hung connection, stopped clients
> (CTRL-Z) may cause unmovable windows.
> 4. code and bug (!) duplication in every toolkit.
> 5. Malware, adware or scareware easily have way too much control about the
> graphical environment.
> To sum it up: I am concerned, that most features that make X11 window
> managers
> absolutely rock compared to Windows or OSX will be gone.
> >
> > Personally, I think toolkits could do a better job of rendering
> > decorations than the compositor could.
> Why? and in which way?
> > Secondly, there seems to be a belief that people would write wayland
> > applications without any toolkit - that wayland would be a toolkit in
> > essence, like Xlib is.  Also, similar to the demo apps that are
> > currently given.  But from what I see of the project, it would be
> > expected that applications would be developed using a reasonable
> > toolkit such as Qt or GTK, and thus those toolkits can provide all the
> > functionality clients are concerned about - such as threading for
> > window interaction and so on.  I don't see any reason to try push any
> > of that onto the compositor/WM.
> While I generally agree, I would like to point out that some applications
> might not require a toolkit. The most prominent example would be 3d games,
> but
> I think there are also other special purpose applications, that might not
> want
> to use a toolkit (like proprietary ports of windows software).
> btw. Has anyone ever asked the developers of the major desktop
> environments,
> windows managers and toolkits what they want?
> -- regards,
> Fabian Henze
> _______________________________________________
> wayland-devel mailing list
> wayland-devel at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the wayland-devel mailing list