Where should project Weston go?
bryce at osg.samsung.com
Tue Dec 9 01:46:51 PST 2014
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 11:18:16AM +0200, Jussi Laako wrote:
> On 9.12.2014 1:26, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> >But I imagine 'minimal' is intended here in more of an engineering
> >sense, and interpret it myself to mean something like: Focuses on
> >principle features not superfluous stuff better handled by other
> >projects; doesn't overengineer algorithms to squeeze a few drops of
> >performance; feature selection by what fits nicely and makes sense, not
> I would like to ask, what/where are those "other projects". As long
> as there are no such projects, weston is the one used and also the
> metrics to judge overall project in terms of quality and
Already many such "other projects" have sprung up: Protocol dumpers,
advanced terminal clients, keyboard and input libraries, and of course
the desktop environments themselves. My expectation is that if
Wayland/Weston maintain a tight focus on core functionalities and
intentionally ignore the more peripheral things, then that will create
holes/opportunities that third parties can fulfil.
> >I've noticed over the years, that I can say until I'm blue in the face
> >that "Wayland is just a protocol, Weston is just a reference
> >implementation, and you need to look at desktop environments to provide
> >Wayland compositors;" but people still keep asking me, "Okay, but when
> >can I ditch X and just use Wayland as my desktop?"
> If it wants to be just protocol and reference implementation,
> Documentation needs to improve vastly.
Certainly, I agree with this.
> At the current level of documentation and ease-of-use for example of
> libwayland, I'm not holding my breath waiting to see anything product
> quality built ground-up based on what Wayland project produces.
> Now it looks like someone's GUI engine programming experiment.
Let's keep critiques to be constructive.
Perhaps the situation could be improved via some patches from you?
More information about the wayland-devel