Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Antoine Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
Also, some thoughts and questions:
* How hard would it be to use TCP sockets?
It would make it possible to use other transports, like openvpn/etc.. or
just plain TCP for testing.
It'd be pretty trivial -- all the core code pretty much just wants a
socket, it doesn't care where it came from -- just you'd have to deal
with security and the UI and all, which is a hassle.
I have tested this and it worked beautifully.
I have come up with a scheme which remains backwards compatible too (the
default behaviour is unchanged):
* instead of specifying ":displayNo", you can use "host:displayNo"
The server then binds to the TCP socket using the host name (ie:
localhost) and the display number (+ an offset).
The offset can be specified on the command line with a switch but
defaults to 10000.
Ditto for the client: you can specify "host:displayNo" instead of
"ssh:host:displayNo".
* We still create a file in ~$USER/.xpra except it is not a socket but a
plain file with the host and tcp port number in it.
This allows 'xpra list' to continue to work as before.
Is this acceptable for merging?
If so, how would you like me to send the patches? diff against trunk?
Thanks
Antoine
_______________________________________________
Parti-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.partiwm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parti-discuss
