Re: MPS and pgtk

[Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>]

Arsen Arsenović <arsen@aarsen.me> writes:

> I am curious about what these are, as I am quite interested in the
> further development of Wayland.  IMO, X has overstayed its welcome, as
> it is flawed from the ground up, visibly (to the point where I was quite
> surprised the other day when I opened an X session to find noticeable
> issues handling mixed refresh rate, and flickering when windows were
> changing sizes or opening/closing).

At fault is probably your X compositing manager or poor engineering in
he client, not the X server, and least of all the extensible X
protocol...

> I am aware of the GTK issues of not being able to multihead or handle
> disconnects, but the only Wayland one I am aware of is lack of a way to
> know which frames are visible (which I don't see as a big issue.. and it
> is perhaps fixable anyway).

If Emacs is to be satisfactory citizen of the Wayland desktop,
facilities for moving frames on the virtual desktop and reading their
positions are a non-negotiable must.  It's really too bad that this is
literally anathema to Wayland's designers as one of the putative
misdesigns of X they chose to target for eradication.  This of all
things!

Gracefully responding to disconnects, and suchlike, are deficiencies in
GTK that will be addressed if and when I determine to commit myself to
implementing a Wayland terminal backend independent of all but the
Wayland client libraries and protocol definitions, though, needless to
say, no tears will be shed if anyone will undertake this now.

> WRT GTK, I've considered Qt (but have not seen yet whether it has the
> same restrictions) and multiprocessing the UI, but have not had time to
> look into those options yet.  Has anyone lese considered Qt?

Qt is equally incapable of responding to interruptions to display
connections, AFAIK.