On 9/24/13 7:49 AM, Brian Hinz wrote: > 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.
One of the other major differences in Java vs. C++ is performance. Putting aside for the moment the fact that the C++ TigerVNC viewer is tortuously slow on OS X (an order of magnitude slower than it should be) because of some unknown FLTK issue, on most platforms the C++ viewer is going to be as much as 3x faster than Java because of the use of libjpeg-turbo to accelerate JPEG decoding. This is something else we've addressed in TurboVNC's fork of the Java viewer-- by calling libjpeg-turbo through JNI. Doing such creates distribution and packaging challenges, though. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60133471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Tigervnc-devel mailing list Tigervnc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tigervnc-devel
