Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!bu-cs!bucsb!boreas
From: boreas@bucsb.UUCP (Michael A. Justice)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: event-driven X11
Message-ID: <2701@bucsb.UUCP>
Date: 25 Jun 89 06:29:24 GMT
References: <2069@gmu90x.UUCP> <5303@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: boreas@bucsb.bu.edu (Michael A. Justice)
Followup-To: comp.windows.x
Distribution: na
Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci.
Lines: 21

In article <5303@pt.cs.cmu.edu> egc@pie1.mach.cs.cmu.edu (eddie caplan) writes:
>using XCheckIfEvent() i can have my program be driven by some other factor and
>still periodically look for Exposes, etc.  but then i can only pick up XEvents
>when my other factor triggers.  if the X protocol would support a scheme where
>i could get an interrupt when one of my selected XEvents occurs, then this
>problem would be solved.

Assuming you're running UNIX, why not fork your process, and let one of the
two processes do the XNextEvent-loop while the other does your other stuff?
You could then have the XNextEvent-loop's process generate interrupts to tell
the "main" process about any events it needs to hear about.  Shared memory or
pipes or some such scheme for the processes to keep each other informed. . . .

Hmmm, "pie1.mach.cs.cmu.edu", the Mach OS has these capabilities too, no??

			-- Michael.
-- 
BITNet: cscj0ac@buacca \  Michael Andrew Justice @ BU Graduate School (CS)
ARPA: boreas@bucsb.bu.edu  \     "My sophistication surprises you, Zorba?"
CSNET: boreas%bucsb@bu-cs      \  "Your existence surprises me, Bald Ape."
UUCP:...!husc6!bu-cs!bucsb!boreas  \ _The_Architect_of_Sleep_, S.R. Boyett