>pavel@elf.ucw.cz said:
>> And if you put ability to paint menus in server (which is IMO good
>> think), you have additional advantage that you can select how
>> *applications* will look on your desktop.
>
>alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk said:
>> X is meant to provide services not policy. Thats very important. You
>> can run your own policy engine and interface on the server if you wish
>
>You can write a server under X that does exactly what Pavel says. We
>see it every day in our window managers.
Window managers are *clients* and they don't run in the server. This means
that they produce lots of X traffic on network, unlike if the window and
widget managers would run *in* the server.
>> No. In many cases (menus, dialog boxes, ...) it is really ineffective
>> to transfer data by lines as X do it.
>
>Who said that X transfers such things by lines?
Umm, by rectangles and text strings then =)
>Anyhow, even if the X server isn't perfect (it isn't) it is a far better
>starting point then most of the other options. You can almost surely
Yes, that's the point. X isn't perfect so it should be improved :)
Another option is to write completely new windowing system (like Berlin)
but it really should be X compatible...
This new window system which has widgets in server side, could be
written as X extensions (or at least this is how the clients would
see it). This would ensure compatibility with existing X programs
and it would be probably the fastest way to implement the feature.
X would get even more bloated, though.
-- | Tuukka Toivonen <tuukkat@stekt.oulu.fi> [PGP public key | Homepage: http://stekt.oulu.fi/~tuukkat/ available] | Try also finger -l tuukkat@stekt.oulu.fi | Studying information engineering at the University of Oulu +-----------------------------------------------------------