Re: NET WM Spec implementation and changes
- From: jg pa dec com (Jim Gettys)
- To: "Bradley T. Hughes" <bhughes trolltech com>
- Cc: wm-spec-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: NET WM Spec implementation and changes
- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 13:04:34 -0700 (PDT)
It isn't all that hard to do your own Xlib routine, even those implementing
batching. Implementing Xlib routines is done by people implementing
extensions, after all. I suggest, however, that if you'd like it ubiquitous
in the X community, you recode it into banal C; not everyone will buy
into the C++ religion... Avoiding round trips by batching isn't very
hard. To remind people, I enclose my previous pointer to where to find
a good example of avoiding round trips implemented in Xlib.
I recommend sending your revised spec out for general review when
you've a nearly "final" spec, probably to the XFree86 developer list.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Jim Gettys)
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:32:48 -0800 (PST)
To: Matthias Ettrich <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: status?
> From: Matthias Ettrich <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Resent-From: email@example.com
> Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 20:30:18 +0100
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: status?
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2000, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Is there a feeling that people are happy with the spec? Any final
> > additions? I noticed a few comments in the archives since the last
> > draft, but not too much traffic.
> Did we decide what to do with the property packing?
> Originally we intented to pack everything regarding client windows into one
> extensible property to avoid roundtrips to the server.
> Somebody mentioned that it's just a few lines X-lib hacking to be able to
> several property in one roundtrip, so we better keep it simple.
It was me... It isn't all that hard to write Xlib routines to "do the
right thing" in a single round trip (you might claim I'm biased, having
written Xlib in the first place). I have evidence on my side, however,
there having been significant X extensions written over the years.
There are things I'd do differently if I had them to do over again, so
handling errors is more of a problem than it might be, but it isn't all
Possibly the best example of doing this sort of batching is
in the routine XInternAtoms, in the file xc/lib/X11/IntAtom.c in an
X distribution: interning atoms became a Xt toolkit bottleneck, and so
this routine was added (and Xt reworked) to let you Intern a bunch of
atoms in one round trip. XInternAtoms is between one or two pages of code.
Technology and Corporate Development
Compaq Computer Corporation
To unsubscribe: mail email@example.com with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
] [Thread Prev