[patch] abstract socket support for xtrans

[Jamey Sharp]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 12:16:25AM +0000, Bill Crawford wrote:
> There isn't really any very elegant solution, though; if it weren't
> for the "well known port" issue, the application above could pretty
> much ignore details of the transport and vice versa.

Ah, I'd forgotten how very abstract the xtrans interface is. Now I think
I understand the problem.

> On Sunday 19 March 2006 23:02, Jamey Sharp wrote:
> > In some sense it's not going to disappear for a while. Top-of-tree on
> > libX11 still has a build-time option for not using XCB and instead using
> > the old code. I expect that option to persist for some time.
> 
> Fair enough, I just don't see the benefit of "improving" xtrans if it's being 
> obsoleted :)
> ...
> Stripping the xtrans layer down to just unix and tcp sockets would actually 
> make life a lot simpler, as we've already seen. Eliminating it altogether is 
> possibly the right approach, in fact. I'm a little sad, 'cause I was looking 
> forward to rewriting it :) but I wouldn't mourn long.

I think there would be few objections to eliminating xtrans altogether,
and perhaps much rejoicing. :-) You gonna go for it?

> > Well... (/me desperately hopes this doesn't turn into a flame war)
> 
> Good grief no. I certainly had no intention of flaming anyone. I'm mortified 
> to think I might have given that impression :$

You didn't. But X developers, as a rule, have strong opinions: I'm not
immune to this myself. :-) I was half expecting someone to yell at me
about how important STREAMS or DECnet are.

--Jamey
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20060320/3e0ab028/attachment.pgp>