Plasma port to Wayland

[Pier Luigi Fiorini]

2014-11-05 11:01 GMT+01:00 Martin Graesslin <mgraesslin at kde.org>:
> On Wednesday 05 November 2014 10:37:59 Sebastian Kügler wrote:
>>
>> Otherwise, we're waiting for the ECM to be merged? The RR has a shipit, so I
>> guess that can go in, and we can proceed with merging other patches in. Do
>> you need any help with that?
>
> pointing out the second obvious: we have a dependency problem for merging
> all the patches. The protocols are in my opinion not yet in a state that we
> can submit to ABI stability for all of KF5 - after all it's a new technology
> for us and we have to be careful. Then obviously KWayland cannot become a
> framework with the current compiler requirements which in turn means that
> KWindowSystem cannot depend on it. This needs thinking and discussion on
> the framework mailing list. At the moment I don't consider KWayland as suited
> for a framework yet.

KWayland shouldn't be considered a framework (not yet), it would only
slow development down.
After a Plasma meeting I thought we didn't want KWayland to be a
framework just yet :)

> There were a few showstoppers in the review request for KWayland last time I
> looked at it. E.g. it implied a Qt 5.4 dependency due to using QtWayland. That
> is currently not possible and we need a better solution for combining with
> QtWayland. The patches are in that area too hackish as the API becomes not
> obvious which parts need to be used with QtWayland and which with
> KWayland's own wayland connection. And the patches were completely
> missing unit tests when I last looked at them which is a must requirement for
> getting anything into KWayland.
>
> Overall I don't want us to rush things. There is no problem with these things
> taking time and living in a branch. We have not won anything if we hurry now
> to notice we created a problem in a few months. As said: I think submitting
> the protocols at this point in time to stability is too early. It's good that
> we have the protocols, but we need to give them a few more rounds of review
> and thinking. We also should look at them and think about what makes sense
> to upstream into Wayland. Once we are 100 % sure that these protocols are
> the way to go, we can submit to them.

Some issues with the protocol might go un-noticed until someone uses
them during the Plasma port.
We had a first round of discussion and that lead to good results but
the protocols evolved a little bit after that when I worked on
plasmashell.
The last version can be found in KWayland repository, the files are:

 - plasma-effects.xml
 - plasma-shell.xml
 - plasma-window-management.xml

Having a lot of patches living in personal branches makes thing too
hard and slow IMHO.

During this phase KWayland should not be considered a framework giving
us the freedom to modify protocols should we need it and then
gradually merge patches on the other repositories as soon as they are
ready.

-- 
Out of the box experience
http://www.maui-project.org/