From: Justin Mason (jm at domain netnoteinc.com)
Date: Fri 06 Aug 1999 - 11:27:59 IST
Paul Jakma said:
> I think its a worthwhile idea alright, and it just might work.
> One small catch would be that every tom dick and harry toolkit
> would want in on the act :-). One could compare gtk in the server
> vs no gtk as a CISC vs RISC style argument.
>
> Well RISC is clearly superior! (oops wrong thread.). It's not about
> 'gtk in the server'. It'd be far more generic than that. It'd be a
> way for any client to store a set of rendering procedures in the
> server along with info on how to do basic modifications, (eg
> length/width/colour), and refer back to it later.
>
> The biggest benefit would obviously be when using a standard
> programming widget library across all your apps.
IMHO, I can see other problems as well; there'd be version compatibility
issues too, e.g. gtk-1.1.x versus gtk-1.2.x, etc. Also, it could bloat
the server's memory use even more than it already is. I think there's
already enough version incompatibilty with all this GTK shared lib crap,
so basically I think I like D11 more ;)
PS: thx to the people who replied about AO/DI -- and Padraig Brady, it
does sound like Ieunet's (now esat.net's) callback situation is the
nearest thing Irish ISPs can do. For god's sake where's that bloody DSL
TE were talking about!!! ;)
Cheers,
--j.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:04:26 GMT