Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61

Thread: Qt 5.1 To Feature Improved Support For Wayland

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,079

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    * The toolkits will have to do everything that X is doing right now
    The toolkits are already doing everything X is doing right now, which is exactly why X is so f***ing useless and getting replaced.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    515

    Default

    I think some people here might be misguided in that they think CSD means the toolkits have to draw the decorations.
    The way it will most likely turn out to be is that everyone will use some sort of 'libdeco' to do the drawing instead,
    actually unifying decorations even across compositors, something that wasn't even possible under X.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ancurio View Post
    I think some people here might be misguided in that they think CSD means the toolkits have to draw the decorations.
    The way it will most likely turn out to be is that everyone will use some sort of 'libdeco' to do the drawing instead,
    actually unifying decorations even across compositors, something that wasn't even possible under X.
    You know what?

    That is something I could live with!

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,117

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by jrch2k8 View Post
    1 app could look the same regardless the DE and toolkit(true for widget and decoration) just drawing directly in any form you like
    So GNOME Shell implemented a usage metaphor that makes minimizing unnecessary. Therefore it's not a completely outlandish assumption that GNOME applications for Wayland will draw a titlebar that won't have a minimize button.
    Absolutely NO Xfce, Plasma, Unity, etc. would want to use a GNOME application that cannot be minimized. Unity users wouldn't want to use applications with titlebar buttons on the righthand (i.e. the “wrong”) side.

    Client-side decorations also mean that the application is the only one to decide what happens with a window. So when I load a huge file into an applications and while processing the file the UI becomes unresponsive, I won't even be able to minimize it.

    Quote Originally Posted by jrch2k8 View Post
    if DE enviroments agree in using a common drawing API that interfaces with Wayland protocol(cairo, GL, etc) to draw widgets/decorations
    Stupid Wayland takes one of the most useful X11 features away and other projects should fix that? What if they don't? “Too bad, you’re stuck with Wayland now” or what?
    IMO it's evident that Intel develops Wayland for tablets, smartphones and other devices (smart TVs, IVI,…) that don't have windows and that's fine but then Intel should not act if Wayland was for desktops as well.
    No one is seriously denying that X accumulated tons of cruft over the decades but attempting to replace it by even throwing X’s good aspects out of the window is absolutely retarded.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    So GNOME Shell implemented a usage metaphor that makes minimizing unnecessary. Therefore it's not a completely outlandish assumption that GNOME applications for Wayland will draw a titlebar that won't have a minimize button.
    Absolutely NO Xfce, Plasma, Unity, etc. would want to use a GNOME application that cannot be minimized. Unity users wouldn't want to use applications with titlebar buttons on the righthand (i.e. the “wrong”) side.

    Client-side decorations also mean that the application is the only one to decide what happens with a window. So when I load a huge file into an applications and while processing the file the UI becomes unresponsive, I won't even be able to minimize it.


    Stupid Wayland takes one of the most useful X11 features away and other projects should fix that? What if they don't? “Too bad, you’re stuck with Wayland now” or what?
    IMO it's evident that Intel develops Wayland for tablets, smartphones and other devices (smart TVs, IVI,…) that don't have windows and that's fine but then Intel should not act if Wayland was for desktops as well.
    No one is seriously denying that X accumulated tons of cruft over the decades but attempting to replace it by even throwing X’s good aspects out of the window is absolutely retarded.
    "Awesomeness" - please go search for "Unresponsive applications" on the wayland list to see the reasoning behind client side decorations before you go calling the people as well as their ideas/product "stupid"...

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    424

    Default

    In other words, if you use an efl application in Unity, it'll integrate poorly. Oh wait, it would anyway.

    What it really means, is if you use [insert wayland incompatible toolkit here] in Unity, you'll get a rootless X window which is nested inside the wayland compositor, and will have the same decorations as all of your other windows (the compositor which contains the X window, which is part of the toolkit you're using (GTK, Qt, etc.), will use your current theme for that).

    The only thing which may be off would be the color scheme and the actual application feel (because the wayland incompatible toolkit may not utilize the same theme library). That would be, and is, the case now anyway. Hopefully it will be improved in the future, since color schemes can be relatively simple to represent. It'd be up to the toolkits' developers to decide whether it's worth their time, though.

    Hopefully, any toolkits which implement the wayland api will also implement this ethereal new theme specification. I've heard it theorized a few times, and I believe it's possible, but I haven't heard any news recently about it. Here's hoping. ^_^

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,079

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Client-side decorations also mean that the application is the only one to decide what happens with a window. So when I load a huge file into an applications and while processing the file the UI becomes unresponsive, I won't even be able to minimize it.
    Please do some research. This is just plain false.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Please do some research. This is just plain false.
    It would be helpful if you pointed him in the right direction, with a link. How will it work?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,079

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    It would be helpful if you pointed him in the right direction, with a link. How will it work?
    There is a way to tell that applications are not responding (or otherwise something like a busy cursor wouldn't be possible).

    It's entirely legal (and was proposed on the wayland list) for the compositor (Weston, KWin, etc.) to override the default appearance of the app in that case.

    That allows the compositor to stick custom menus, or draw it's own titlebar + buttons on top of the hung app, and the compositor is free to force close, minimize, help drag the window, etc. to it's hearts content.

    I don't have a link, but i'm sure you can google to find it if you want.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdx View Post
    Qt, not QT.

    Learn to write please.
    Learn to write, please. Seems to me he knows how to write just fine--although, he may not necessarily know how the name of a certain toolkit (Qt) is written, or is otherwise lazy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •