Pierre Ossman wrote: > Ah, I see. That makes sense. I don't know how the current deferred > update system is implemented, but I'll have a look. > > The behaviour of sending changed areas immediately on a FUR is a bug > IMO and should be fixed if it's there in the current code base. The way > deferred updates is documented, it's supposed to aggregate changes over > a certain time. That should mean that you cannot get updates at a > faster rate than that timer. > > Does everyone agree with that assessment? > If it were any other protocol than RFB, I'd say definitely yes. With RFB, though, I'm not sure if I understand the ramifications of it well enough to say one way or another. I had to do a lot of testing with TurboVNC before I was comfortable shipping it with modified RFB behavior, and even still, it took three major releases for me to finally get it right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Tigervnc-devel mailing list Tigervnc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tigervnc-devel
