when this came up a while ago, you suggested one devdraw
server per namespace. after some consideration i convinced
myself you were right. programs like rio could be much closer
to the plan 9 source. lately i've been considering writing an
X server extension implementing devdraw. (i realize this might
be problematic on osx.)
why did you choose to run 1 devdraw per graphical program?
i still think that the right long-term solution is
a single devdraw that can handle many windows.
this was easier to get running and get right
(which is not to say that it worked the first time!),
and i don't want to waste any more time on x
than i already have.
responding to earlier questions, you're still supposed
to use draw(3). drawfcall(3) is subject to change.
russ
