| |||||||||||||
LFCS 2012: X and WaylandLFCS 2012: X and WaylandPosted Apr 19, 2012 22:00 UTC (Thu) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)In reply to: LFCS 2012: X and Wayland by wmf Parent article: LFCS 2012: X and Wayland
Wayland is the wrong place for network transparency. When people speak of "network transparency" what they really mean is "efficient remote rendering", and Wayland does not define a rendering protocol. It is strictly a protocol for accessing the screen and input devices.
What we need is not a remote version of the Wayland protocol, which is inherently _local_ due to the use of shared memory, but general-purpose protocols for remote rendering and input, targeting Wayland for access to the hardware. For now, the X protocol can serve that purpose, as can single-window adaptations of VNC. Future protocols can take similar advantage of Wayland for the low-level hardware interfaces, and concentrate instead on remote rendering.
(Log in to post comments)
LFCS 2012: X and Wayland Posted Apr 22, 2012 16:48 UTC (Sun) by VITTUIX-MAN (guest, #82895) [Link]
Wayland is exactly the right place to implement network transparency, in XPRA way in a network aware compositor.
This does all the things we love in networked X, that is mainly rootlessness is the default and it would allow plugging into a running session, so connection problems would no longer close all open programs.
LFCS 2012: X and Wayland Posted Apr 22, 2012 17:16 UTC (Sun) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link]
> Wayland is exactly the right place to implement network transparency, in XPRA way in a network aware compositor.
For LAN yes, but as I said here (http://lwn.net/Articles/493461/), WAN will probably suck unless there are many changes.
In my understanding currently:
- Wayland has very limited server rendering, so to be able to have XRender-way to display text, you'd have to change it significantly, until then Wayland will use much more bandwith to display text than X (if the toolkit use the XRender extension of course).
|
|||||||||||||