X configuration paradigm, and a proposal

[Ted Kaminski]

On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 14:23, Jim Gettys wrote:
> The point is that X is only one component of a fully configurable
> desktop; it should be a good citizen and do what it is told, rather than
> the current, obsolete view of X owning everything, and having to be
> restarted to chance a configuration, and fighting with other
> applications that might need the same resources.

Has anyone considered moving configuration out of the X server
completely? This could be done by having the X server do nothing but
start listening when it first starts, and wait for a configuration
client to connect and tell it which devices to start using.

Compatibility could be preserved by shipping two clients along with
Xorg, the autodetect client and the current configuration format client.
(nicely compartmentalizing that code)

This solves a number of problems:
 1. Configration format. Human readable vs Machine readable is up to the
client.
 2. Dependancies. The X server would never have to start depending on
HAL or gconf, for example.
 3. Hotplug. The design essentially requires that hotplug be supported.

and creates one problem (that I can foresee)
 1. Security. The X server is root, and the user is telling it which
devices to use. Uh oh.

This idea doesn't directly address the problem of binary driver
installation complexity, but the suggested solution for that (multiple
file configuration format?) could certainly be implemented as a third
configuration client shipped with Xorg (and become the new default).

The work necessary to achieve this seems to center around two things:
 1. Hotplug. This already appears to be a relatively short term goal.
 2. Nonroot server. Unless I'm mistaken there's some slow work towards
this, correct?
 (3. As long as input stuff is getting shaken up in the process, is
there any reason we continue to pretend there's only ONE "core" mouse
and ONE "core" keyboard?)

Just some thoughts,
Ted