Article View: comp.windows.x
Article #38084Re: extension philosophy [was Re: audio servers]
From: Martin Brunecky
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 1990 16:53
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 1990 16:53
47 lines
2782 bytes
2782 bytes
In article <3015@bacchus.dec.com> klee@decwrl.dec.com writes:
>
>You have a good point, in that too many extensions is probably not a
>good idea. I think, however, that no extensions is also not a good
>idea. Extensions provide powerful features that are generally
>inefficient or impossible to implement in the client. Of course,
.... ( I did not want to say NO extensions )....
>
>Limiting extensions to those that provide really useful functionality
>is probably a good idea. Making the specifications to the extensions
>open so that anyone can use them is another good idea. I think all the
>extensions mentioned above (except the audio extension, which I don't
>think anyone is really working on now anyway) are useful ideas with open
>specifications.
>
O.K. The problem I see is that all those really usefull
extensions will make the server HUGE. Example is the XNeWs
server, where people not using NeWs pay the penalty of
the server support for NeWs, even though they don't use it.
Another problem is extension loading/adding to the server.
Most users will depend on vendor provided servers, with very
little or no way to bind-in additional extensions, even though
such extensions could be provided by the third party.
The "big" extensions add a whole class of functionality.
PEX, DisplayPostscript, XImage. The whole new dimension.
Therefore, I would rather like to see such "extensions" as
specialized servers, activated where needed, living in
separate address space. Since many extensions demand really
efficient access to the X server, sharing lots of X window
semantics, they need an efficient, (shared memory based?),
low level server-to-server protocol.
On the other hand, there are extensions which are more "fixes"
or minor enhancements to the core protocol. SHAPE is an
excellent example. Such extensions deserve their place
in the X server, and I don't object to it.
--
=*= Opinions presented here are solely of my own and not those of Auto-trol =*=
Martin Brunecky marbru@auto-trol.COM
(303) 252-2499 {...}ncar!ico!auto-trol!marbru
Auto-trol Technology Corp. 12500 North Washington St., Denver, CO 80241-2404
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<780@auto-trol.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!ncar!ico!auto-trol!marbruReferences:
<776@auto-trol.UUCP> <9003121606.AA03191@expo.lcs.mit.edu> <4840@crltrx.crl.dec.com> <1837@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <3015@bacchus.dec.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!ncar!ico!auto-trol!marbru From: marbru@auto-trol.UUCP (Martin Brunecky) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: extension philosophy [was Re: audio servers] Message-ID: <780@auto-trol.UUCP> Date: 14 Mar 90 16:53:30 GMT References: <776@auto-trol.UUCP> <9003121606.AA03191@expo.lcs.mit.edu> <4840@crltrx.crl.dec.com> <1837@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <3015@bacchus.dec.com> Reply-To: marbru@auto-trol.COM (Martin Brunecky) Organization: Auto-trol Technology, Denver Lines: 47