Re: [RP] ... --solved (with my workspace scripts) -Phuk!

[TBlittlefoot]

On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 05:02:03AM -0800, Kipling Inscore wrote:
> > > I think clients should probably be able to draw to their own windows
> > > (if mapped) and to off-screen pixel buffers without asking the window
> > > manager. Drawing is a request that has to go to the X server.
> > > Window managers like ratpoison would have a much easier task if they
> > > were able to really screen, filter and forward any requests from other
> > > clients.
> >
> > Are you sure there's no way to do that? Perhaps a seperate app controlled
> > by the window manager that intercepted calls to the X server?
> 
> There's no good way that I can think of. There's no official way.
> The X server could be modified to send its events to a filtering
> program before actually executing them. This would make the server
> deviate from the X protocol specification.

So what? 

> Xlib could be modified to send its requests to a filtering program
> before even sending them to the X server. This would make it seem that
> the server is deviating from protocol spec. And there are a few
> programs that don't use Xlib to generate and interpret their X11
> network packets.

What a tangled web we weave...

> Another option is to run a fake or proxy X server that's acting as a
> firewall--screening, filtering and forwarding packets between clients
> and the real X server. This requires duplicating the server-side X11
> packet interpretation and generation, which isn't in Xlib, or
> listening carefully to a real but hidden X server and keeping track of
> a set of lies corresponding to the differences from the user's X
> server.

One and three look the most promising. Too bad I couldn't
C++ my way out of a wet paper bag.

> > As for emacs, well, I'm a vi guy. On my box, [x]emacs is aliased to:
> 
> As am I. Vim, actually. But not gvim.

Never tried it. Using elvis right now and considering going back
to nvi.

Thanks,

Tom