Hello,I tried to send this message last week, but there were problems with my list subscription so I think it ended up in a black hole somewhere.
Has anyone ever addressed the issues raised in http://lists.gnu.org/ archive/html/gnustep-dev/2002-01/msg00013.html, regarding -NSHost support with X? I couldn't find any further discussion on this topic.
Two issues arising from recent discussions on the mailing list -1. X systems can have multiple 'displays' (each display consisting or a keyboard, a mouse, and one or more screens), but the NSHost mechanism presumes that a host isa workstation with a single user. Should we implement some extension to -NSHost to allow for this?2. X systems can be dumb machines without GNUstep running, so would not run thepasteboard, notification centre, and workspace processesShould we implement some mechanism whereby some other GNUstep machine could runthe required processes on behalf of the dumb X terminal?
Ignoring, for now, the problem of supporting multiple GNUstep users on a single host, I'd like to have the ability to use a DISPLAY setting other than ":0.0" while using a local GNUstep session (gpbs, gdnc, etc.). This would allow me to run GNUstep on a local display other than ":0.0", or control a machine remotely via a dumb Xterminal. Today, this doesn't seem to be possible, as it is assumed that a GNUstep session is running on the remote host.
To allow this to work, I propose deleting the code that automatically sets the "NSHost" default whenever -NSHost is not specified and DISPLAY is defined (see attachment). This would produce the behavior described by the table below. The only difference from today is in case (B). The proposed change would make it necessary to specify the -NSHost argument whenever you want to connect to a remote GNUstep session; it does NOT attempt to address the issue of being able to specify a display other than "remote:0.0" when using -NSHost.
-NSHost specified? DISPLAY defined? Behavior ---------------- ---------------- --------A. NO NO Local GNUstep session, display on local:0.0 B. NO YES Local GNUstep session, display on $DISPLAY C. YES NO Remote GNUstep session, display on remote:0.0 D. YES YES Remote GNUstep session, display on remote:0.0 (DISPLAY ignored)
This behavior seems reasonable to me, and supports my needs. However, I'm not really familiar with the GNUstep internals, so please set me straight if this is a bad idea. Otherwise, I'd be very happy if someone could implement this change in the main distribution. I could enter this as a bug report if that's the appropriate course of action for change requests.
Thanks, Tim McIntosh
XGServer.m.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev