> I'm not blaming OpenGL, I'm just telling that it's not easier to use than XRender.
Is it? OpenGL now has very nice wrappers that can abstract gritty details.
> You're wrong here. Check http://www.x.org/wiki/IntelGraphicsDriver at least. But I wasn't asking where it works, I was asking why it works faster on the same hardware. Hint: because it uses hardware-specific optimisations for 2D rendering, impossible outside of the driver, impossible in Wayland.
That's incorrect. You can use whatever rendering API you want, the only requirement is that you use a surface that can be composited by Wayland.
Nobody stops you from using driver-specific rendering methods.
I've actually checked the SNA source code and it looks like it's using the regular GEM and command submission system of the kernel driver. So you definitely can use something like it for 2D rendering with Wayland. You probably can even use the current SNA with Wayland.
>That universal excuse "I don't need it"... Wayland doesn't need anything. It just makes optimised 2D interface impossible, and it does not care that almost everything in modern interface is 2D.
Incorrect on both counts.
> You don't need to check that. That's the beauty of XRender. You only need to check that it's supported. And it is supported for 10+ years.
Yeah, sure. That's why many XRender-based apps are about as fast as molasses.