[no subject]

Clients are expected to save their state in such a way as to allow
multiple instantiations of themselves to be managed independently.  A
unique value called a client-ID is provided by the protocol for the
purpose of disambiguating multiple instantiations of clients.  Clients
may use this ID, for example, as part of a filename in which to store
the state for a particular instantiation.  The client-ID should be saved
as part of the command used to restart this client (the RestartCommand)
so that the client will retain the same ID after it is restarted.
Certain small pieces of state might also be stored in the
RestartCommand.   For example, an X11 client might place a `-twoWindow'
option in its RestartCommand to indicate that it should start up in two
window mode when it is restarted.
.
.
.
--

The question remains: What data is relevant? Restoring a geometry of
1600x1200 on a screen that is 320x240 would not be a good idea.

> When you logged out, the X server would fork off a child process that
> would inherit all its sockets and shared memory (thus keeping your apps
> alive). All your windows would be unmapped, so your apps wouldn't waste
> too much time drawing to a nonexistent screen! Both processes would
> relinquish control of the graphics card, and the original X server
> process would terminate. The new process would carry on running in the
> background (X daemon), and would either write its PID to a file in your
> home directory or listen on a particular socket or whatever.
> 
> Oh, maybe it would have to wake up periodically, to stop the clients
> blocking if they insisted on talking to the server when they didn't have
> any windows mapped. I'm not sure.
> 
> When you logged in, the display manager would look for an X daemon
> belonging to you. If it found one, it would relinquish the graphics card
> and then re-awaken the X daemon. (I think I read a sci-fi novel by that
> name once.) The X daemon would claim the graphics card and start
> behaving like a normal X server again.
> 
> But I've used machines that had half a dozen of someone else's zombie
> Netscape processes running in the background, and trust me, you don't
> want this.  ;-)
> 

Indeed, you are correct. ;-)
> 
> Michael
> 

Cheers,
Greg Merchan
(auspex on GimpNet)