| ▲ | wmf 3 hours ago |
| When the window manager is a separate process with async communication between the WM and display server things can get out of sync for a frame or two which leads to visual artifacts. In Wayland the window manager works synchronously with the compositor so that it's never out of sync. |
|
| ▲ | csb6 3 hours ago | parent [-] |
| Yeah, that makes sense. It seems like instead of introducing another IPC protocol like this project does, there could be a compositor that loads different window managers as plugins. Then everything is in the same process and there is no need for async communication. Of course a crash in the window manager would take down the compositor, but this is already true for Wayland compositors that combine both. |
| |
| ▲ | WhyNotHugo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > It seems like instead of introducing another IPC protocol like this project does It doesn't introduce a new IPC, it uses the Wayland protocol with the river-window-management-v1 extension. The extension mainly defines new objects and verbs for them, but it's the same protocol. Separate process means that the window manager can be written in any language (even, e.g.: Python). | | |
| ▲ | csb6 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Interpreters for Python, Lua, etc. can be embedded so using them does not require a separate process. | | |
| ▲ | MarsIronPI an hour ago | parent [-] | | What about Emacs? That's the usecase I care about. Until I can get Emacs to manage my Wayland windows ala EXWM, I'm sticking to X. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | sly010 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | ... or the WM loads the compositor, or the WM links to a compositor library (i.e. wlroots). The point is there are options... Honestly, every time this topic comes up, I feel like the person complaining just doesn't want to put in the work and they are angry that they don't get an easy win. And maybe that's a good thing. Do we really need more half baked WMs? |
|