On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Otavio Salvador
<[email protected]>wrote:
> Hello Marc-Andre,
>
> I agree with most of this concept except that I think xfreerdp
> shouldn't implement the X11 GDI calls but those ought to be provided
> by a libfreerdpgdi X11 backend. So if we implement a new client we
> won't need to redo all this again.
>
I agree on this, but we can't sacrifice the performance for UIs where there
is enough demand for a more specific implementation. This architecture
change would assist developers into writing their own specific
implementations, having a reference implementation right beside. It would be
possible to port to a new system by using the software-based implementation
first, and then writing a more specific implementation that could be tested
by comparison with the software-based implementation. For X11, there is
enough demand to maintain such a specific implementation, but it would still
benefit from the architecture change and use as much code that can be reused
from the common GDI library.
There is also the case where some libraries do not support software
buffers.
>
> --
> Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
> E-mail: [email protected] http://www.ossystems.com.br
> Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the
growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses
are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your software
be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker
today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar
_______________________________________________
Freerdp-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freerdp-devel
