> -----Original Message----- > On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 10:38:40AM -0500, Grant McDorman wrote: > > > > The problem is that VNC, on *nix systems, will always use a display > > number for access by applications. If one drops the display > number for > > the VNC client connections, then we'll have *two* unrelated IDs for > > the VNC server - the display number, and the VNC ID, whatever that > > might be (port perhaps?). > > We already have that. A typical Xvnc listens for X apps on > :1 and also > listens for VNC clients on :1, where :1 and :1 are two completely > different things. :-/
Not that hard: The X number is the ofset from 6000, the vnc number is the ofset from 5900. However this is only the default > > It's even possible, though rare, to have Xvnc use completely different > display numbers for X and RFB, which could be incredibly confusing to > someone who doesn't understand the difference between :1 and :1. And > the system breaks down completely if you have 100+ displays. It's not that rare, it is used with the -init option. > > It would be a lot less confusing if all VNC implementations used a > single port for RFB. Xvnc would still have an X display number, but > anyone using X can be expected to figure that out. The X number is only to be used in the X protocol. How would you find your vncserver if there are more than one running on the machine, all using the same port? For the M$Windows users, you have this 1 rfb port: 5900. Not hard if you can only run 1 server. > > The current system only makes good sense on one platform, and > it doesn't > scale. The more I think about it, the more I like the current settings. Only the viewers lack the option to control the port used, it now has to be set with odd display numbers. > > > I agree it doesn't make much sense in the Windows-only > world; however, > > when connecting to *nix systems (from any system) it does > make sense, > > and (in my opinion) should not be removed. > > In a VNC implementation with a single port serving multiple displays, > each display would still need some kind of identifier, and it > would make > sense for Xvnc to continue to use the X display number for > that purpose. > It would even work with display numbers > 99, which would be > refreshing. X11 has problems using display numbers over 99 since only port 6000 - 6099 are reserved for X11. With that in mind, a lot of software uses 8 bits numbers. Take that signed and the displays over 127 will mangle with Xvnc. Either display :155 or :156 crashes straight into your vncserver port.... > > > Perhaps what we need is a way to explicitly specify the VNC > port (the > > 580x/590x) on both the client and server. Connections to non-*nix > > systems could then use that. > > That would be nice too. Xvnc currently has command line options with > which you can specify either port number or display number. > It would be > nice if other implementations had that feature as well. The java applet has, check the html code you get on port 5800. > > CBee --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the line: 'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
