On 2010-03-16 14:16, Rob 613 wrote:
My information remains accurate.
Oh really? How so, exactly? Remember there is a difference between
fact and opinion.
I am neither refering to any new brokenness in Record - as one of the
original developers of it I am refering to its design flaws, as well
as the cumbersome nature of needing to use two extensions.
>
> This is absolutely not about porting code to use XTest, since that
> absolutely covers none of the necessary functionality.
Obviously the rest of the X Consortium didn't agree with you, as XTrap
was deprecated in favour of XTest/RECORD in X11R6.0:
http://www.x.org/releases/X11R7.5/doc/man/man1/xtrap.1.html#sect6
That was *16 years ago*. In fact that is SO old, that DEC is mentioned
as the primary developer, and they disappeared in the late '90s.
Then in June 2008 it was agreed by the current X.Org devs that:
XTrap offers no functionality over RECORD/XTest [...]
XTrap does not support capturing replies, and it has limited support
for extensions. The XTestFakeInput request and XETrap_SimulateXEvent
are identical semantically [...]
RECORD/XTest is, in short, a superset of XTrap in terms of functionality.
But I will give you credit for disproving this statement:
but no-one who remembers this stuff is still alive
FWIW.
I would absolutely be happy to speak with the new X.Org folks about
it. Can you think of a particular person to speak with?
You may take this to the upstream mailing list if you wish, but knowing
the current development plan, I strongly suggest you not waste your and
others' time and just port your software to XTest/RECORD.
Yaakov
Cygwin/X
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/
FAQ: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/
