Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions

[Pekka Paalanen]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 07:41:10 -0400
Drew DeVault <sir at cmpwn.com> wrote:

> Thus begins my long morning of writing emails:
> 
> On 2016-03-29 12:01 PM, Jonas Ådahl wrote:

> Not everyone has dbus on their system and it's not among my goals to
> force it on people. I'm not taking a political stance on this and I
> don't want it to devolve into a flamewar - I'm just not imposing either
> side of the dbus/systemd argument on my users.

If you don't use what others use, then you use something different.

As you don't want to use what other people use, it goes the same way
for other people to not want to use what you use. Whatever the reasons
for either party.

Wayland upstream/community/whatever cannot force neither you nor them
to do against their will.

So your only hope is to compete with technical excellence and
popularity.

> > Pinos communicates via D-Bus, but pixels/frames are of course never
> > passed directly, but via shared memory handles. What a screen
> > cast/remote desktop API would do is more or less to start/stop a pinos
> > stream and optionally inject events, and let the client know what stream
> > it should use.  
> 
> Hmm. Again going back to "I don't want to make the dbus decision for my
> users", I would prefer to find a solution that's less dependent on it,
> though I imagine taking inspiration from Pinos is quite reasonable.

Up to you, indeed, on what you force down your users' throats, but the
fact is, you will always force something on them. Your users don't have
the freedom of choice to use your compositor without Wayland either.
You chose Wayland, your users chose your software.

> > Sorry, I don't see how you make the connection between "Wayland" and
> > "screen capture" other than that it may be implemented in the same
> > process. Wayland is meant to be used by clients to be able to pass
> > content to  and receive input from the display server. It's is not
> > intended to be a catch-all IPC replacing D-Bus.  
> 
> DBus is not related to Wayland. DBus is not _attached_ to Wayland. DBus
> and Wayland are seperate, unrelated protocols and solving Wayland
> problems with DBus is silly.

Correct. Use each to its best effect, not all problems are nails.

If there already is a DBus based solution that just works, why would
someone write a new solution to replace that? There has to be a benefit
for replacing the old for the people using the old solution. It could
be a benefit for the end users of the old, or for the developers of the
old, but if the only benefit is for "outsiders", it gives no motivation.


Thanks,
pq
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/attachments/20160329/fe261d16/attachment.sig>