[I suppose Jason should approve these messages to the list.]
On 16 Sep 2004 17:02:57 -0400, Salvatore Domenick Desiano wrote:
>
> I go back and forth about this. On the one hand, dumping the C structure
> is the most efficient way to take care of shipping this kind of data. On
> the other hand, my platform-independant psyche says "yech." I like the
> idea of adding a new message, but only if it is heading toward a permanent
> solution. What're you thinking about as an alternative to shipping the C
> structure? I mean, I can think of a few, but they seem so grossly
> inefficient (either in terms of space or computational overhead). I'd like
> to think about this in the context of where this code is going, rather
> than just the intermediate solution.
Maybe Dominik has another solution, but my "best" solution is something
like this. Send all bits packed by hand (not C structure), and send the
scheme using the described MX_WINDOW_FLAG event.
Advantages as compared to your solution:
* sent data is not compiler specific
* more network-optimal, currently window_flags contains some internal
window state useful to fvwm only, it would not be sent
Disadvantages:
* less performance-optimal, requires a work to pack flags
* probably more difficult to maintain, but this is not clear yet
* replacing the sent window_flags is a risky change
Both solutions are similar in that they require the same MX_WINDOW_FLAG
to define the scheme. Also, the Perl code written for one should not be
changed when switching to another.
So, I think, we may start with adding a new event and not changing any
existing events. Then later we may raise the question again of whether
the compiler specific format is good or not.
Regards,
Mikhael.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
