Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Joseph Kowalski wrote: >> >> A couple of questions - *very* high level ones (which may just mean I'm >> missing something): >> >> 1) We have the Vino client. Here we are integrating the RealVNC >> server. >> Why are we mixing and matching here? RealVNC provides a very >> similar client (or two it seems). > > Vino actually uses the RealVNC jar files, it just provides integration > with > the GNOME desktop for that VNC client software. (To answer another > offline > question, this is why Vino is listed in the imported interfaces - instead > of shipping a second copy of those jar files, if you start Xvnc with > -httpd, > it will serve the Vino-provided copy of the RealVNC jar files.) Good answer. Thanks! >> 2) Volatile seems low for this, based on my "meager, but non-null" >> understanding >> of the RealVNC project. Is this a "keep it Volatile for now, >> higher later" type >> of thing or is there some other reason? > > Simply that I have no feeling about the level of interface stability that > RealVNC maintains. Sounds reasonable. In that case, Volatile is probably the right choice for now. Maybe after more experience with RealVNC, we might want to raise this to Uncommitted (which is more committed than Volatile).
- thanks, - jek3
