Patches So Nouveau Users Can Try Out Wayland

[pingufunkybeat]

Firefox does use GTK, just not everywhere. XUL is a homegrown toolkit that lies on top of GTK (in linux) and other toolkits for other operating systems. Like how OpenOffice uses GTK in linux but has their own widget system on top for cross-platform code.

Both Firefox and OpenOffice use their own toolkits for everything, and only interface with GTK or Qt for painting the widgets, so they look native.

It's a lot like using the Qt-GTK engine for making all GTK apps look like Qt apps and vice versa. The apps are coded using one toolkit, and the final painting is done by the other one.

I don't think that Firefox depends on GTK in any way, it's just a drawing backend.

[CrystalCowboy]

"Much of this extra functionality in x-server is not used any longer by modern toolkits like QT or GTK+, but has to be supplied for backwards compatibility."

And what if one of my key applications happens to rely on some of that functionality?

What about XVideo for example? Will Wayland be able to display XVideo? If so, will I have to modify my code any to make it work?

[BlackStar]

And what if one of my key applications happens to rely on some of that functionality?

What about XVideo for example? Will Wayland be able to display XVideo? If so, will I have to modify my code any to make it work?

Then your app will run in an X emulation layer, pretty much like X apps run on Mac OS X.

[bridgman]

Wayland would not implement the XVideo API (since that is part of the X wire protocol) but you could accomplish the same thing via OpenGL rendering. It would also be pretty straightforward to implement some Xv-like functionality as an independent rendering library over Gallium3D, either as a standalone API library or by adding support for YCbCr surfaces to a generic 2D rendering library.

I guess the key point is that anything with an X in it would either need to have an alternative implemented or would have to run on top of X. That said, many of the things which are implemented on top of X today are implemented that way because X was the one standard thing in a Linux/Unix graphics stack, not because there is some implicit dependency on something X-ey that only X can deliver.

[89c51]

I guess the key point is that anything with an X in it would either need to have an alternative implemented or would have to run on top of X.

keith packards opinion on the topic

http://lwn.net/Articles/413335/