On Mon, 3 Dec 2012 19:02:06 -0500 David Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
> With Wayland will we be able to: > > Have multiple seperate wayland sessions on the same computer, as many as > one wishes, Yes. > with many of them being headless, accessible if the user wishes > through a remote desktop solution such as VNC? Sure, but that is not a Wayland protocol or libwayland thing. The only Waylandy thing there is that the (headless) server needs to be a Wayland server, naturally. Where that server pushes surfaces to and gets user input from can be anything. > Will be able to use a > command line switch or environment variable to determine which wayland > session an application should be started in on a per application basis? Yes, it already exists. > Does the wayland environment provide information on what areas of the > screen are visible to apps, similar to Expose events? This could also be > done with a pointer to shared memory data structure that contains a list of > exposed areas. If this is not provided, I would be concerned applications > will waste time drawing areas of their window that are not visible. No. See wl_surface::frame request[1] instead. Clients always provide complete frames. > I previously asked if one can run an rootless and an session in-window X > Server as a wayland client, to a wayland session, so x applications can be > displayed on a wayland display, and if one can display a wayland session > and even individual wayland apps onto an X server. I think that these are > very important features. XWayland already exists, and offers at least rootless X app support on Weston. Weston can already run on an X server, one X window per Wayland output, with the x11 backend. That is like rootful, not rootless. > Being able to display individual wayland apps to an X server selectable at > runtime, is a highly desirable feature, this would solve the need for > headless remote desktop sessions, since I could display wayland apps to > Xvfb (headless) and use x11vnc with Xvfb. Not implemented, and I cannot see the usefulness of this in the long term, but it is definitely possible to implement. > These features will be necessary. The fact is, toolkits and applications > cannot be trusted to provide runtime switchable display targets between > wayland and X11. We've had experience with similar situations that shows > that application developers will neglect this. Back when XRender extension > was implemented, a large number of X applications ended up not supporting a > fallback for servers that did not support XRender, despite the assurances > that they would. This led to X applications not working at all on servers > that did not support X render. The situation will be similar this time > around. A number of applications will neglect support for display to x11. If you say so. > Users should not be forced to give up their x11 environment, many of us > have specially tuned X window manager configurations, and the way to > assure that this will not happen is to gaurantee that individual wayland > only applications can be displayed to an X server through some facility for > this purpose, allowing us to run wayland applications inside our X sessions > with our preferred X window manager. There are no technical reasons preventing you from implementing that, if the only aim is to get Wayland applications to show up in an X server. When desktop shell protocols evolve, even the window decorations might not be a problem. Thanks, pq [1] http://wayland.freedesktop.org/docs/html/ _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
