Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!bcm!wilkins.iaims.bcm.tmc.edu!etaylor
From: etaylor@wilkins.iaims.bcm.tmc.edu (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Network services (was "Offending game?")
Message-ID: <2279@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>
Date: 18 Oct 90 17:00:33 GMT
References: <61273@masscomp.ccur.com>
Sender: usenet@bcm.tmc.edu
Reply-To: etaylor@wilkins.iaims.bcm.tmc.edu (Eric Taylor)
Lines: 25
Nntp-Posting-Host: wilkins.iaims.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <61273@masscomp.ccur.com>, black@yoyodyne..westford.ccur.com (Sam Black) writes:
|> In article <2274@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> etaylor@wilkins.iaims.bcm.tmc.edu (Eric Taylor) writes:
|> > The X api operates using the network services calls.  Any X program
|> > will make these calls.
|> 
|> Not true.  Only some implementations use the network service calls.  An
|> efficient implementation might have bypass methods if the client and server
|> are on the same machine (depending on the machine and O/S architecture).
|> The network service calls in "acm" appear to provide the client access to
|> the acm server, not the X server.
|> 
|> 		- sam
|> 

I was under the impression that the network services were "smart" enough
to figure out that you were talking to your own machine and use the cheapest
method available for talking bewteen 2 processes on the same machine.

If this is indeed the case, why would an X implentation try to bypass this by
re-inventing the wheel.
-- 
					Eric Taylor
					Baylor College of Medicine
					etaylor@wilkins.bmc.tmc.edu
					(713) 798-3776