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>

["Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange redhat com>]

On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 10:22:29AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> 
> >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 :-)

I agree that users would be better off forwarding the VNC traffic itself
but at the same time I know people often use VNC in the way Federico
describes. Thus I think it is worth helping that scenario to work well
providing it is not detrimental to the common scenario & the code.

> 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.

At bare minimum those would have to be made conditionally compilable, but
would prefer GTK calls if practical.

Daniel
-- 
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London   -o-   http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org  -o-  http://virt-manager.org  -o-  http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505  -o-  F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|