"Is Wayland network transparent / does it support remote rendering?
No, that is outside the scope of Wayland. To support remote rendering you need to define a rendering API, which is something I've been very careful to avoid doing. The reason Wayland is so simple and feasible at all is that I'm sidestepping this big task and pushing it to the clients.
*** It's an interesting challenge, a very big task and it's hard to get right, but essentially orthogonal to what Wayland tries to achieve. ***
...."
I'm also concerned about all of these toolkits that are being ported to Wayland. Will applications that are linked against them still talk to X Servers? Or is this something that a developer will have to decide when they build their application? I understand that this is outside the scope of Wayland, but am wondering what decisions are being made. Will I have to have two copies of simple apps that I happen to want to sometimes run remotely? (At least until the "very big task" of adding network transparency to Wayland is complete.)
Posted Feb 16, 2012 14:54 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
I'm also concerned about all of these toolkits that are being ported to Wayland. Will applications that are linked against them still talk to X Servers? Or is this something that a developer will have to decide when they build their application?
This depends on the toolkit, obviously, but GTK+ and Qt support plugable backends. I think GTK+ 3.0 was one of the last components which were needed before something like Wayland become feasible.
Note that even if toolkit itself supports switching application can still be tied to one implementation or the other.