On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:47:49 +0200, Silvan Jegen <s.jegen_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> So the reason you would not want dwm to be a shell plugin for Weston is
> that Weston is too focused on fancy modern features, correct?
Eh, maybe I am being a bit too hard on Weston. It just seems to be
growing quite steadily which scares me and I wasn't thrilled with it
overall.
> Implementing a proxy wl_shell for this hypothetical blitting compositor
> and having dwm as a separate process communicating with it would be
> another possible approach.
Yeah, that's what I tried to describe.
--
Michael Forney <mforney_AT_mforney.org>
Received on Mon Jul 29 2013 - 13:35:53 CEST