Re: Application modal transients windows

On  5 Nov, Paul Warren scribbled:
->  On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 wrote:
->  > On  5 Nov, Paul Warren scribbled:
->  Ok.  So what is the basis for this comment:
->  "Before anyone suggests passing raw image data to the WM, I will say that
->  is IMO a really bad idea."

i'd like to know that too.

->  Is it just the burden that it will place on the WM for rendering these
->  icons?

if thats the case its easily overcome - there rendering code galore and
libraris that do it for you.. and wiritng your own isnt hard at all. if
its bandwidth on the wire.. well i dont think the icons will be large
enough to make a difference - its not the data xferred but roundtrips
that kill - and getting the icon pixmap Id and getting the data both
require the same roundtirp - just the getting of the image data
piggy-backs the result on the way back.

->  > if the wm doesnt have an RGBA backend one will appear as an X extension
->  > in the future anyway... so if you dont want to write the code to trnder
->  > it.. you wont have to... and to write naevee (perhaps not so fast code)
->  > to render it into apixmap - even withotu dithering and alpah blending -
->  > just thresholding, is pretty trivial.
->  > 
->  > i'd prefer a standard that thinks ahead and doesn't do things just
->  > because it's cheap and convenient. 
->  Likewise.  I'd be grateful if the author of the above comment (Marko?) or
->  someone else could explain the issues.

me too - as what we have here is just what ICCCM has had foevere with
one addition - allowing the pixmap to be root depth instead of just
depth 1.

anyone got insight into this? i think it's good we have a debate on
this now, rather than leave it half-done and end up with a standard
several of us may think is inadequate

--------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]