On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:03:04 -0500 DRC <dcomman...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> 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. > We don't have to agree on how this should be implemented right now, just the principle that "deferred update" should mean to aggregate all changes over a certain time, regardless of how FUR:s arrive. As you say, actually getting that behaviour might take a few attempts. Rgds -- Pierre Ossman OpenSource-based Thin Client Technology System Developer Telephone: +46-13-21 46 00 Cendio AB Web: http://www.cendio.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Tigervnc-devel mailing list Tigervnc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tigervnc-devel
