| |||||||||||||
XDC2012: OpenGL futuresXDC2012: OpenGL futuresPosted Oct 11, 2012 10:18 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: XDC2012: OpenGL futures by khim Parent article: XDC2012: OpenGL futures
Of course, you don't need Wayland for that -- as Eric pointed out, you can implement the send-images-over-the-wire thing without changing anything about the current user-visible API/ABI. It's not like the clients care where the rendering is being performed: they just care that it *is* performed.
The answer to everything is not always "Wayland".
(Log in to post comments)
XDC2012: OpenGL futures Posted Oct 12, 2012 15:40 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] That's why I've said something like Wayland. I'm pretty sure it's possible to build system which does rendering locally and is backward-compatible, too. Do we want that? That's different question.
XDC2012: OpenGL futures Posted Oct 12, 2012 15:59 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
Backward compatible with X? The X server can output to Wayland just fine AFAIK so there should be no trouble continuing to use the X protocol for as long as you wish. It's backwards compatible in much the same way XQuartz provides compatibility.
|
|||||||||||||