Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!pie1.mach.cs.cmu.edu!egc
From: egc@pie1.mach.cs.cmu.edu (eddie caplan)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: event-driven X11
Message-ID: <5315@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 26 Jun 89 12:00:55 GMT
References: <2069@gmu90x.UUCP> <5303@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <2701@bucsb.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 13

In article <2701@bucsb.UUCP> boreas@bucsb.bu.edu (Michael A. Justice) writes:
    >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. . . .

this is precisely what i do now.  but, i would have preferred to have had this
functionality inside the X protocol.

by the way, Jim Fulton's suggestion of setting a SIGIO on ConnectionNumber(dpy)
is not a bad idea.  i might switch to it.
--