X Core Protocol Scheme

Michael Titke michael.tiedtke at o2online.de
Sat Dec 12 12:40:44 PST 2015

On 12/12/2015 19:26, Ilya Anfimov wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 06:31:55PM +0100, Michael Titke wrote:
> [skipped]
> [skipped]
>> core protocol requests to receive those mappings for the current map in
>> effect are ignored by the server.
>   No.

Tell that my X server or deliver the byte string! ;-)

> [skipped]
>>>>     finally deliver the protocol specifications where these kinds of
>>>>     interactions are layed out? Or some up to date updates on the core
>>>>     protocol? But as I have heard the X server doesn't even know about all
>>>>     registered extensions anymore - at least on Ubuntu with Unity one of
>>>>     the first events to be received was an impossible operation code of 192
>>>>     which wasn't reported by xdpyinfo to belong to any registered
>>>   Extension  opcodes  assigned  by server at QueryExtension reply,
>>> you should get that bytestream and find the extension  name  from
>>> there. The number 192 may mean anything.
>> The QueryExtension request isn't implemented in the experimental setup right
>> now but as stated /xdpyinfo/ didn't report that operation code.
>   Bag my pardon: missed the word "Event" in you description.
>   The  192 event is synthetic event with code 64, and I don't know
> what it should mean. Mostly because never interested in possibil-
> ity of bogus events -- just drop them.

Some Unity Panel Map / Unmap or expose and hide notification. Perhaps 
they started using the 8th bit as the security bit to defend the all 
time specifications again? That would make sense as 128 + 64 is just 
192. ;-)

Never mind. VSI development has been stopped anyway and the priority of 
the graphical input output path has been lowered. There isn't really 
much sense in starting anew like this today considering another shift of 
interest. At least not in public on the "all mighty" Internet ..

More information about the xorg mailing list