Hi, Bill Haneman, le Mon 06 Jun 2005 21:29:47 +0100, a dit : > Your comment is not a solution either.
My comment is not indeed, but my previous proposal seems a reasonable one to my mind. > This is NOT slow, at least until someone provides concrete benchmarks > showing why more performance is necessary. I've just tested: with my 800MHz pentium III and the "read line by line" algorithm, the loop takes 3-15ms when getting the bottom of the screen (most usual case at the prompt). While with a line-oriented protocol (thus avoiding round-trips), it usually takes 6�s... For instance, the X11 team carefully designed their protocol to avoid round trips as much as possible. I'd say at-spi should as well. Why not using a design that both makes code much less tricky in both BrlTTY and libvte, and is much more efficient ? > It already works transparently over networks. I don't doubt that :) But networks typically add some ms more, which makes things yet worse. While without round-trips, the network latency is only added once. > No matter what we do, terminals will continue to have to provide the > AccessibleText API (even if they also provide another supplementary > API), since AccessibleText should be implemented by anything that > renders text onto the screen. This means hairy code for terminals programs. I don't think xterm/aterm/eterm/... authors will write such hairy code. And terminals _don't_ render text but rather lines of text. That is really obvious when reading xterm/aterm/eterm/...'s code. If you prefer, that could be an 1-dimension AccessibleTable of AccessibleTexts, but defining a neat AccessibleTerminal would be much preferable I guess. Regards, Samuel _______________________________________________ Gnome-accessibility-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-devel
