Re: [gtk-vnc-devel] [PATCH 5/7] Use X window backing store for the VNC window 2008-11-24 Federico Mena Quintero <federico novell com>

[Anthony Liguori <anthony codemonkey ws>]

Jonh Wendell wrote:
> Em Sáb, 2008-12-20 às 02:37 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero escreveu:
>   
> > On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 22:50 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> >
> >     
> > > Hmm, so, the attached patch doesn't make me 100% happy, but using a
> > > macro from Cairo is the only way I could find of detecting at
> > > compile-time if GTK+ is built for X :(
> > >       
> > Ignore me, I'm on crack.  This patch is broken - I'll send a good one on
> > Monday.
> >
> >   Federico
> >     
>
> Hello, guys. Any progress here?
>
> Can we commit Federico's patches?
>
> They are good for a new version, agree?
>   

I provided feedback on the last rev of the series.  To quote:

> Also, this is why things like LBX and NX exist.  X is a terrible 
> protocol to use over high latency connections.  These patches may make 
> it as usable as TightVNC, but that still has to be pretty terrible.
>
> I don't mind the patches that adjust encoding order or implement new 
> encodings.  As long as it's in the spec, and we have evidence (via 
> traces) that some servers behave better with a different encoding 
> order, that's fine to me.
>
> Introducing low-level X dependencies seems like a bad idea to me 
> though.  It makes the code less portable because of platform specific 
> hacks and it makes things generally less understandable. 

gtk-vnc over X is not a use case I'm terribly interested in optimizing.  
Just forward the VNC traffic :-)

Some of the patches could go in (following the above guidelines) if 
they're split from the series and resubmitted.  I really don't want to 
see X-specific calls introduced though.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> Cheers,
>