Den 2009-04-24 11:00 skrev Pierre Ossman: > I feel a bit like every option results in ugly complexity somewhere. :/ > > The best option would be if we could extend the init sequence, but I'm > not sure that's feasible.
If you can live with a dependency on the tight security type, you're all set. 1. Server says "I support tight" 2. Client says "I want tight" 3. Server says "I support client-to-server message SetDesktopSize" 4. Client says "I support ExtendedDesktopSize pseudo-encoding" At this point, both sides know all there is to know about the capabilities of the remote end. The client may therefore send a SetDesktopSize message even before the first FBU-request. (The tight security type enables you to add step 3) I don't think it'll get cleaner than that, and adding your own security type for this is insanity. I sometimes regret that I didn't do it this way for the gii extension [1]. I didn't know how the tight security type worked when I did that (at least that's how I defend myself these days, can't say that I remember when I knew what with 100% certainity). Cheers, Peter [1] http://ggivnc.git.sf.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=ggivnc;a=blob_plain;f=doc/README.gii ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensign option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects _______________________________________________ Tigervnc-devel mailing list Tigervnc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tigervnc-devel
