On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Christian Steinle <
christian.stei...@unicon-software.com> wrote:

> thanks for your comment. I did not know this fact. At a first glance, the
> JAVA viewer seems to be a good opportunity for us. However I have to think
> about the concept change then. Do you know any other functional difference
> between the Java code and the C++ code of the viewer?

I do my best to maintain the java client such that it parallels the binary
client very closely, in most cases all the way down to the coding style.
So most of the primary differences are in the supported SecurityTypes (the
java viewer supports a few beyond what the binary client does, primarily
because "I" need it to).  Additionally, the java client has to support some
modes of operation that don't make sense in the context of the binary
viewer (applet mode).  Beyond that, the only real deficiency that I can
think of is that the binary client probably has better support for
multi-head setups.  That could be remedied however, DRC has done it for the
TurboVNC java viewer which shares a similar code base.
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from 
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
Tigervnc-devel mailing list

Reply via email to