Taneli, The statement means exactly what it says - the viewer must keep a copy of all parts of the framebuffer in which it is interested. If a viewer only wants to know about half of a server's desktop, for example, then it need only store that half.
What is it that you are actually trying to do? Regards, Wez @ RealVNC Ltd. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Taneli Leppd > Sent: 22 July 2005 21:52 > To: James Weatherall > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: (devel) Question on FrameBufferUpdate and incremental > > > Hello James, > > Yes, the document you mention is my bible on VNC issues. > However, I do disagree that it describes precisely. I think > the phrase "The server assumes that the client keeps a copy > of all parts of the framebuffer in which it is interested" is > somewhat ambiguous (does "interested" mean "internally > interested in" or "expressed interest in by sending > framebufferupdate requests where the region is always included in"). > > If you could clarify which one of my interpretations is > correct (or if they're both incorrect), I'd be most thankful. > > > Taneli, > > > > Please refer to the RFB protocol specification > > (http://www.realvnc.com/docs/rfbproto.pdf), in particular to the > > description of FramebufferUpdateRequests, which describes precisely > > when it is necessary > > to request non-incremental updates. > > > > Regards, > > > > Wez @ RealVNC Ltd. > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> On Behalf Of Taneli Leppd > >> Sent: 21 July 2005 23:50 > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: (devel) Question on FrameBufferUpdate and incremental > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> The RFB proto specification isn't too clear on this issue: > >> > >> 1) I ask (and receive) a full framebuffer update (initial screen) > >> 2) then I continue to ask for framebuffer updates for a > region of the > >> remote desktop, but keeping the first full update in memory > >> 3) I start asking for updates on a different region of the remote > >> framebuffer (non-overlapping with the first region) > >> > >> At the above situation, is the correct way to: > >> > >> 1) Use the incremental flag for the request for updates of the new > >> region, since I do have its original state still in memory > (ie. does > >> the server > >> know to send optimized updates considering I didn't > express explicit > >> interest in the new region before except for the initial screen) > >> 2) Ask for a non-incremental update on the new region and > >> continue as usual? > >> > >> Of course the latter option should work always, but the > former option > >> would definately save some bandwidth. > >> > >> -- > >> Taneli Leppd | Sektori.com > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://sektori.com/> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> VNC-List mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> To remove yourself from the list visit: > >> http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list > > _______________________________________________ > > VNC-List mailing list > > [email protected] > > To remove yourself from the list visit: > > http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list > > > > > -- > Taneli Leppd | Sektori.com > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://sektori.com/> > _______________________________________________ > VNC-List mailing list > [email protected] > To remove yourself from the list visit: > http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list [email protected] To remove yourself from the list visit: http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
