Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th May 2013 11:29 UTC

Thread beginning with comment 562167
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Regular Linux SW compatibility?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 20th May 2013 16:49
in reply to "RE[6]: Regular Linux SW compatibility?"
No, you're right, You're essentially running everything through Xorg and wayland.
http://wayland.freedesktop.org/xserver.html
RE[7]: Regular Linux SW compatibility?
by pgeorgi on Mon 20th May 2013 19:41
in reply to "RE[6]: Regular Linux SW compatibility?"
But the X compatibility layer may be an additional performance killer
Probably not. As long as the X11 protocol implementation runs close to those buffers, there's no problem.
The main difference of Xwayland to "native" solutions is where it ends up pushing the drawing commands to - in case of Xorg's COMPOSE extension, it send all image data to pixel buffers that are then laid out in a separate step, which is exactly how it'd work with Xwayland.
There's just a different protocol between them to coordinate this, and it's probably more suited than X11, too.
What you don't get is "non composed" graphics, which is only a problem if you try to build a scalable (to many windows) display server in 256KB of RAM or less...
RE[8]: Regular Linux SW compatibility?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 20th May 2013 23:07
in reply to "RE[7]: Regular Linux SW compatibility?"
Member since:
2005-10-18
That's for sure. But the X compatibility layer may be an additional performance killer, though I know nothing about the design of this layer and may be wrong.