Re: Heated agreement? (was) Re: Canvas shortcomings
- From: Nathan Hurst <njh hawthorn csse monash edu au>
- To: Mark <jamess1 wwnet net>
- Cc: Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>, Martin Sevior <msevior mccubbin ph unimelb edu au>, gnome-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Heated agreement? (was) Re: Canvas shortcomings
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:38:26 +1000 (EST)
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Mark wrote:
> Another possiblity is no interpreter at all. The interpreter allows a
> clean seperation between the display server, and client application. Mac
> OS X seems oriented to the desktop user, so they probably don't care about
> this. They might use a hybrid interpreter/API, where the API has fine
> control over the interpreters actions. This would probably be closer to
> most graphics APIs available.
Here are some more questions to think about(nobody has really answered my
previous questions, besides Mark, so I can only assume that the other
participants haven't actually thought them through).
Is there a difference between an interpreter and a serialised protocol?
Why do we want an interpreter?
(What will be the benefits and costs associated?)
Why do we want a serialied protocol?
(What will be the benefits and costs associated?)
njh
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]