On 9/11/07, William Lahti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The sharpws-server part was never compilable on my machine, because I > hadn't gotten to that point yet.
Yes i noticed & no problem ;) > Clients would then need to link to 2 libraries instead of 1. So I'd > prefer not to, but it's not that big of a deal. I do think it should > be "Core" (fits with our kernel/AOT semantics) or "Common" though, as > Host is ambiguous. 'Core' or 'Common' would be fine to me .. > > This way it should also be simpler to have multiple servers and > > multiple clients, which could be usefull at some point. > > Multiple server and client _libraries_ you mean? If so, they could > just copy our classes into their library. I also don't see the > usefulness of doing so since the system already supports pluggable > protocols, so there's not a lot of need to get in and mess with the > libraries at least. I didn't mean libraries, with clients i ment (remote)users > Bitmap is _so_ legacy that it's not very palatable. We don't need > super-advanced font rendering at first, and since SharpWS uses vector > drawing operations already, implementing basic TrueType support won't > require implementing vector ops specifically for the font rendering. What i ment was that at first we would just use a bitmap to render text, because rendering letters from vectors takes some effort to accomplish while rendering text from a bitmap is only a couple of hours work.. The bitmap font rendering would be replaced eventually, but it would allow us to render text without having to write an entire vector text rendering engine first. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ SharpOS-Developers mailing list SharpOS-Developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sharpos-developers
