On Sunday 24 June 2007 18:39, Attila Kinali wrote: > On Mon, 28 May 2007 10:39:15 +0800 > > "Rogelio Serrano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 5/28/07, Attila Kinali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But these days it is very hard to find anyone who actually > > > knows X11.... > > > > Ok if you have seen the freedesktop pages somebody is thinking of > > moving x11 to dbus. now thats totally unacceptable. > > Any url with that? > But even then, i wouldn't believe it. Who ever has said that > has no understanding whatsoever what X11 and what D-Bus is. > Both are in their needs and implementations quite ortogonal.
Well, if the kernel uses DBus to notify userland of changes in the hardware configuration, then it makes perfect sense for the X server to listen to the kernel via DBus and update its input device configuration accordingly. You obviously don't want to do the connection between X server and X client via DBus, but between the server and the hardware? If the kernel already provides hardware drivers, why should the X server duplicate all that? I think the whole idea of X talking to the hardware directly is ugly from an architecture point of view. It may be necessary for performance, but it's not pretty. Ideally, the kernel does hardware access and multiplexing, and the X server is just a userland daemon that talks to the kernel one side, and to the clients on the other. Lourens
pgpU1YTEHPeny.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
