My Ideas on Compositors

[Joakim Sindholt]

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  
> compiz&co.
> 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  
> cuts)
> 

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.