Thoughts about decoration information in the xdg_shell
nyocurio at gmail.com
Mon Nov 18 16:22:13 PST 2013
2013/11/18 Neil Roberts <neil at linux.intel.com>
> Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com> writes:
> > Make it simpler: all clients MUST be able to draw decorations. That's
> > Wayland up until now requires anyway.
> I think it's a shame to throw out the idea of making the policy be that
> clients are allowed to expect SSD if they don't want to draw decorations
> themselves. Requiring CSD support only makes it simpler for compositor
> developers, but it adds a lot of burden on things like SDL, glut and
> applications that really just want a space to render GL content into.
> I guess you could make a toolkit-agnostic decorations library using
> subsurfaces that these types of applications can use. However I don't
> think that will solve the consistency issue because most game-type
> applications will want to bundle all of their dependencies so they will
> end up wanting to bundle this library. The consistency will then break
> when the distro updates its version of the library.
AFAIK SDL2 already dlsym's all necessary Xlib + extension libraries at
runtime anyway, so going the route of a standardized decorations library
wouldn't really hurt the consistency. Not sure about glut, but on the other
hand, which game bundles the required X11 libraries with it? I think none,
because those are regarded as part of the system and bundling your own
would break a lot of things. I think a standardized decorations library
be regarded as "just part of the system" in the same way.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the wayland-devel