Around 9 o'clock on Sep 24, Steve Kirkendall wrote:
> What's the motivation for implementing the emulated visuals in the > server? Do some video cards have special hardware for doing the > conversion? It's a bit more efficient to do the emulation in the server; a client-side emulation would require the pseudo->true conversion be done to a temporary image and then the results sent to the server for display. That's an extra copy of the data. It also provides a more consistent environment for applications. If the X server emulates 8, 16 and 24 bit visuals then migrating applications between servers is significantly easier and doesn't require negotiating which proxy the application should connect to. > Because otherwise, I'd say the PseudoColor emulation should be done > in the Xnest-like proxy. That way, the real XFree86 server stays > simpler and the proxy can be used with any X server. The problem with Xnest is that it provides a whole window system inside a single window; useful for some debugging situations, but it doesn't integrate the two window hierarchies. There's no cut&paste between Xnest apps and regular apps and you've got two window managers running. I think you could probably write a proxy that mapped windows straight across, but it would be quite a bit of work to get the semantics straight when applications communicatee across the proxy boundary. Doing the emulation inside the X server is actually quite easy, the hard part that RandR added was the ability to switch which visuals were emulated and which were mapped directly to the hardware. The current server internals are not structured well to handle that case. Keith Packard XFree86 Core Team HP Cambridge Research Lab _______________________________________________ Xpert mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xpert
