Why isn't Xwayland just a Wayland client?
caseorum at gmail.com
Wed Sep 6 09:48:30 UTC 2017
To be clear, my first look at how the X11 channel is used in practice
hasn't yet turned up the justification for its existence. The logic
usually seems to be "if X client, send event over X11, else Wayland,"
which is redundant. There must be something big, since tacking on a
X11 channel is a big protocol extension, but I haven't found any
discussion of that design decision. Can anyone point me in the right
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Joseph Burt <caseorum at gmail.com> wrote:
> Most Wayland compositors, Weston and WLC-based ones included, carry
> around a bit of XWM code, essentially a protocol extension, to deal
> with Xwayland. Why? What is lacking in Xwayland?
More information about the wayland-devel