Re: [xougen] Re: [Xouvert-general] Server Side Widgets

[Cameron]

Would it be possible to allow a widget set to be able to run on the server 
side as well as able to run client side if the widget set is unavailable on 
the server?

-Cameron

On Saturday 23 August 2003 5:12 am, >> G-LiTe / wrote:
> address@hidden wrote:
> >well, dont hang up on the mouse example. what i want is to put the
> >whole widget handling stuff (at least for the basic widgets) into
> >the server, so it saves much bandwidth. even for local clients it
> >will save quite much, since they still have to talk to the server
> >to write evry little piece of the widgets. an window manager on
> >server side would also be nice.
>
> No offense, but did you think about what exactly has to be done to get
> there?
> It'd involve a major rewrite of gtk/qt libraries that may not even make
> them backwards compatible with older X servers (or you're just going to
> increase their code size).
> You'd still have to transfer each theme to the server, though granted
> the bandwidth overal will decrease.
> This'd also involve sharing alot of code between libaries such as gtk
> and qt which are, as far as I know, fundamentally different.
> Even if they find a way to agree with eachother I wonder if the
> themes'll be compatible afterwards.
> Either way my point is this is not _just_ an X thing and it'd require
> enormous rewrites in some of the toolkit's code.
> The only way to do this is to write a good standard for it that'll suit
> all of the larger toolkits and get them to cooperate.
>
> The window manager idea can go straight to the garbage can in my
> opinion. It just removes the freedom of choice that made linux what it
> is today.
> Sure there are people who use it and others who don't. But it simply has
> to work for _everyone_.
> Almost all of these graphical applications depend on the X server and
> the X server needs to work for all of these applications.
> Surely you can write it as an extension, and maybe that is possible for
> the toolkits to do themselves once there's some better modularity in
> Xouvert.
> But right now, writing an extension for this is, in my opinion, not
> really Xouvert's concern.
>
> If you want something like this, my advice is to help make X more
> modular and then allow the toolkits to write it themselves as I
> mentioned before.
> By more modular I mean being able to compile extensions without needing
> part of Xouvert's sources.
> As far as I know this really just involves a couple of headers. Feel
> free to correct me on anything I've written in here.