Re: About our effort at NoMachine
Keith Whitwell <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.xfree86.forum |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
[email protected] wrote: >>Sender: [email protected] >>From: Alan Cox <[email protected]> >>Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:45:08 -0500 (EST) >>To: [email protected] >>Cc: [email protected] (Gian Filippo Pinzari) >>Subject: Re: [forum] About our effort at NoMachine >>----- > > >>What I would love to see in X11 is conditional streams. When you throw >>a command at a shell for example you can say >> >> "Do X, Y, Z , ... " >> >>but also >> >> Do X, Y, Z, ..." >> >>and bracketed sets of these >> >> Do (Do X, Y, Z stopping on fail) (Do A, B, C stopping on fail) >> >>but stop on a failure. That gives you the ability to do more than just >>batching, since you can batch a sequence of commands for the general >>case and respond to the failure. My gut feeling (and I've not been >>doing analysis unlike you folks) is that this would improve things >>immensely for startup >> > > > No, that isn't the common problem in the packet traces we've begun > staring at, from what we see; though maybe the Qt and GTK developers > might have a different perspective. > > There are places in the core protocol which are unnecessarily painful > for toolkit developers, as various common events generate errors in > the X protocol that should have just generated return status. If > I got a chance to participate in the design over again of both the > X core protocol and Xlib, I'd do things somewhat differently. > > Bart Massey has been working on a different wire protocol interface > (think replacement for Xlib, though structured differently); we've certainly > talked quite a bit on how to do it differently (and he has been, avoiding > my mistakes; time will tell what mistakes he's made :-)). This sounds like an interesting project. Is there anywhere to find more information? Keith