Ok, lemme get this right...
So, comparing this to vnc. First variant would be starting Xvnc being rendered locally yet viewed over the RFB protocol (which is optionally locally possible). This is comparable to a server with thin clients (right?). And the second variant would be running X locally, and have x11vnc polling for changes and making those available as an RFB stream (like me assisting my parents).
Originally Posted by Nobu
But this time, it's integrated into the compositor in the new Wayland 'model'.
So, something like: a compositor (e.g. Weston) depending on a library (e.g. librender). This librender depends on libfreerdp, libvnc, libnx or whatever. So whatever compositor links against librender get's the rest for free. Would be nice.
Originally Posted by renox
So, instead of what renox said: You write a compositor purely for RDP and another compositor purely for VNC and stack that on a compositor currently rendering on a local backend (like DRM or FB).
Originally Posted by EricG
But for that to work, you need screen to manage this shell in order for this terminal to be available both locally and remotely. I guess Wayland is analogue to screen in this case?
Originally Posted by elanthis
But you still need Wayland for every backend, right? E.g. gtk is ported to Wayland. So you should get GTK+ -> Wayland -> Weston -> FBDev. And not GTK+ -> Weston -> FBDev. And the final step depends on Weston supporting whatever back-end you want it to.
Originally Posted by giselher
This is getting 'interesting'. X was split into Wayland and Weston. Okay, so one could say that Wayland is purely a middelman that connects toolkits to your screen. But to manage your screen you use a compositor that responds on user input. I follow on that. Now, this compositor get's all sorts of plugins. BUT, the functionality those plugins provide could also be used by (supposedly) other (stacked of course) compositors. So you have 2 ways of implementing the same functionality. Just one is compositor specific and the other one is not. However, the compositor specific method could be build into a library so that all the compositors that link to it recieve that same functionality.
Please understand that I don't quite follow the general idea anymore...