Re: [xougen] Regarding server side widgets

[>> G-LiTe /]

William Lahti wrote:

> The idea of moving widgets into the server is... ridiculous.
My thoughts exactly.

> And now we have server side toolkits, Fresco (Mac?) style. In the way it was 
> described earlier on this list, it fails to gain anything at all. If you 
> suggest this because Windows(R) widgets are server-side... they are not. They 
> are rendered by the GDI (dll library for graphics used by winapi to do most 
> rendering stuff). The only difference between the X model and the Windows 
> model is that Windows has one toolkit (still client-side note you) that is 
> included (thus standardized), and the extensions can be therefore _very_ 
> simply be supported in all applications, because Microsoft can just update 
> the GDI and related components to add the functionality, and, provided it's 
> still bin compatible, link with the programs at runtime.
>  
That sounds like it should be possible with gtk and qt too.

> I think the notion of widgets needs to be abstracted from X as it is now.
> It doesn't offer enough benefit over the obvious HUGE changes to nearly
> all X servers, as well as adding a huge amount of code, thus making X
> less portable to embedded platforms. Do we want to do that?
>  
My thoughts, again, except for the compatibility.
I suppose it could be done in a compatible way, and if someone can do 
that and
can spend the time to code it, I'd say go right ahead. It still sounds
rediculous to me though and it'll take atleast a few months.

> I propose that we standardize widget theming on the Freedesktop level.
> Some people may say "sure but what about conventions like where the 
> options menu goes? huh?" Please. First of all, if you are trying to
> get Linux/X11 up to speed with XP/OSX, applications follow at least
> two models for stuff like that on XP. The first model is M$'s guide
> that involves stuff like the Tools menu which contains Options etc.
> The other one is the Netscape model which has 'Options' under 'Edit',
> oh and also there's the 'Options' menu at the toplevel. It is *not*
> standardized and really no one cares, you only need to figure it out
> once and you'll remember, ask any Windows user.
>  
>
> That's not to say I wouldn't encourage standardizing a style guide 
> at Freedesktop, if we can get QT+KDE/GTK+GNOME people to agree. Which
> can be pretty tough needless to say **cough**flame wars**cough**.
>  
It's probably impossible to have gtk and qt folks agree with eachother 
on that.
The two toolkits are fundamentally different.

> I believe there is a Shared-pixmap extension or something along those
> lines... why not simply have the toolkits construct and draw the widgets
> based on the shared pixmaps provided by either a 'widget manager' or
> a window manager? Albeit animation for widgets is tougher, but if that 
> extension that Havoc thought up (not the damage one, the shared drawing 
> targets one he thinks will make the damage one obselete) becomes reality (I 
> really like the idea and am looking into the possibilities) than that could 
> be done easily also.
>  
I have like no idea about that, sounds like a plan though.
If we send a pixmap to the server once and keep it in memory (possibly even
video memory), we can simply call the xserver to draw that pixmap somewhere.
Saves a bunch of bandwidth for pixmaps that have to be drawn multiple times.
Possibly also usefull for VNC, which can do that same:
Grab the pixmap from the X server's cache and send it to the client.
Then just tell the client to draw that somewhere.

Also, to Enrico, I absolutely have no idea what you're saying there, I can't
follow it at all. Sorry. :D
The problem with DRI is that it _ONLY_ works on the local machine, it 
isn't just
and restriction, it just can't work if the client isn't on the same machine.
--
> > G-LiTe /
<address@hidden>
--