Re: [Interest] 2017

2017-01-03 Thread René J . V . Bertin
On Tuesday January 3 2017 16:05:07 Shawn Rutledge wrote: >If nobody has done that yet, it’s quite predictable that someone will pretty >soon. (googles) ok maybe https://github.com/RealVNC/wayland-developer-preview >but I haven’t tried it... That still requires the Weston reference server, but

Re: [Interest] 2017

2017-01-03 Thread André Pönitz
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 01:50:06PM -0200, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On terça-feira, 3 de janeiro de 2017 16:19:27 BRST René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > >Another alternative of course is to use some other client-server protocol > > >such that only the “model” of MVC is on the server, and UI rendering > >

Re: [Interest] 2017

2017-01-03 Thread Shawn Rutledge
> On 3 Jan 2017, at 16:19, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > On Tuesday January 3 2017 13:57:51 Shawn Rutledge wrote: > >>> As to remote use: I thought that wasn't the point of Wayland at all? >> >> They keep saying to go on using X11 or VNC or whatever existing solution you >> like. > > They cou

Re: [Interest] 2017

2017-01-03 Thread Thiago Macieira
On terça-feira, 3 de janeiro de 2017 16:19:27 BRST René J.V. Bertin wrote: > >Another alternative of course is to use some other client-server protocol > >such that only the “model” of MVC is on the server, and UI rendering > >instructions are sent across the network instead of actual rendered > >g

Re: [Interest] 2017

2017-01-03 Thread René J . V . Bertin
On Tuesday January 3 2017 13:57:51 Shawn Rutledge wrote: >> As to remote use: I thought that wasn't the point of Wayland at all? > >They keep saying to go on using X11 or VNC or whatever existing solution you >like. They could implement their own VNC compositor then ;) >But then, if Wayland wi

Re: [Interest] 2017

2017-01-03 Thread Shawn Rutledge
> On 3 Jan 2017, at 15:07, Ulf Hermann wrote: >> Another alternative of course is to use some other client-server protocol >> such that only the “model” of MVC is on the server, and UI rendering >> instructions are sent across the network instead of actual rendered >> graphics. For example lo

Re: [Interest] 2017

2017-01-03 Thread Ulf Hermann
Another alternative of course is to use some other client-server protocol such that only the “model” of MVC is on the server, and UI rendering instructions are sent across the network instead of actual rendered graphics. For example load QML over the network and run it locally. For some rea

Re: [Interest] 2017

2017-01-03 Thread Shawn Rutledge
> On 3 Jan 2017, at 12:45, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > I haven't given that much thought, but yes, I think the idea would be to have > a "rootless" Wayland compositor that displays windows alongside native > windows, much like Xquartz can do. An important appeal to the XQuartz > maintainer I spo

Re: [Interest] 2017

2017-01-03 Thread Thiago Macieira
On terça-feira, 3 de janeiro de 2017 10:37:56 BRST René J.V. Bertin wrote: > As a side-note: I've been discussing Wayland on Mac with one of the XQuartz > maintainers. He likes the idea, but there's no one working on it right now, > and the Wayland libraries depend on a couple of functions that are

Re: [Interest] 2017

2017-01-03 Thread René J . V . Bertin
On Tuesday January 03 2017 10:12:50 Shawn Rutledge wrote: > > aren't that suitable for remote execution anyway. That *was* a bit my > > motivation to start tinkering with the xcb QPA, but I've since discovered > > that it's very nice for local use, too. Esp. being able to run Konsole on > > al

Re: [Interest] 2017

2017-01-03 Thread Shawn Rutledge
> On 3 Jan 2017, at 10:37, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > On Tuesday January 3 2017 08:55:13 Shawn Rutledge wrote: >> Are there obstacles to getting it working without the X server? > > I'm not sure I understand what you mean? Just not sure what you are trying to achieve and why… but you explaine

Re: [Interest] 2017

2017-01-03 Thread Kevin Funk
On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 08:55:13 CET Shawn Rutledge wrote: > > On 2 Jan 2017, at 22:46, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > > > Best wishes for 2017! > > > > Accompanied by a "postcard" from the realm of the impossible, just because > > I'm quite auto-satisfied with the result: a KDE's KDevelop 5.3 a

Re: [Interest] 2017

2017-01-03 Thread René J . V . Bertin
On Tuesday January 3 2017 08:55:13 Shawn Rutledge wrote: >Cool! Qool? ;) >Are there obstacles to getting it working without the X server? I'm not sure I understand what you mean? What I'm doing is the apparently really not supported approach: - build Qt5 as normal on Mac (though patched to i

Re: [Interest] 2017

2017-01-03 Thread Shawn Rutledge
> On 2 Jan 2017, at 22:46, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > Best wishes for 2017! > > Accompanied by a "postcard" from the realm of the impossible, just because > I'm quite auto-satisfied with the result: a KDE's KDevelop 5.3 and Konsole > 16.12 running with Qt 5.7.1 and the XCB QPA on Mac OS X 10

[Interest] 2017

2017-01-02 Thread René J . V . Bertin
Best wishes for 2017! Accompanied by a "postcard" from the realm of the impossible, just because I'm quite auto-satisfied with the result: a KDE's KDevelop 5.3 and Konsole 16.12 running with Qt 5.7.1 and the XCB QPA on Mac OS X 10.9 (and the application style dialog running with the Cocoa QPA).