On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Alberto Ruiz <ar...@gnome.org> wrote:
> 2009/3/30 Ted Gould <t...@gould.cx>:
>> On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 12:07 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
>>> So, basically, no I don't see a way that GNOME Shell coexists with
>>> Compiz other than as two separate shells for the GNOME desktop.
>>
>> And I think that coexistence is part of the problem with GNOME Shell
>> becoming the default GNOME interface.  Distributions need something that
>> can gracefully decline between a composited and a non-composited
>> environment.  Not saying that Compiz can do that today, but we
>> effectively get that with the combination of metacity and Compiz and
>> lots of nasty hacks.  But, overall it works.

It can, see compiz 0.9.x (admittedly this is the new development
branch and won't be stable for a while but it _can_ do it, if the
opengl or composite plugins can't initialize for whatever reason
compiz just falls back to being a normal WM and all the bling plugins
aren't loaded.

>>
>> For a GNOME Shell like project to be successful it will need to have
>> either two backends or some sort of architecture that would allow for
>> GNOME Shell features to be integrated in other less featureful
>> shell-like tools.
>
> I don't get why that statement is true. For a GNOME Shell project to
> be successful, it hast to be freakin good.
> Mac OS X and Windows XP are way far more successful desktop
> environments than GNOME or KDE are, and they don't even have the
> notion of swappable windows managers, and if they do, none uses them.
>
> So what's your point here?

See KDE. They've abstracted a lot of their stuff and made special
efforts so that it works with other composite window managers.

>
>> While I love many of the concepts being explored and have suggested
>> ideas for some of them, I just simply can't see the currently
>> incarnation of GNOME Shell being the default for GNOME.
>>
>>                --Ted
>>
>>
>>

To be frank in the end, unless we see some kind of co-operation we are
going to have to take a really bad route, which is forking shell so
that compiz users aren't unfairly locked out of half of their desktop
functionality when using future GNOME versions - I'd really hate it to
come down to this.

>From what I can see with the code, I know so far that gnome-shell is
really just a plugin to gnome, making the job of abstracting it about
100 times easier. I don't think there needs to be a specific
dependency on Mutter's scene graph - the shell isn't really
transformed in any way, so it can just use the GL context and spawn
another clutter context in which it draws on top.

The idea would be to make your plugin a wrapper to the lib, so that
the lib doesn't depend on mutter and the plugin is linked to the lib.
We can do something similar in compiz as can a lot of other window
managers.

I was told however, that there were some javascript bits and bobs in
the code which would make the task harder - but I couldn't find them
in the source. Could anybody point me to these?
_______________________________________________
>> desktop-devel-list mailing list
>> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Un saludo,
> Alberto Ruiz
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>


Kind Regards,
-- 
Sam Spilsbury
_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Reply via email to