Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sparc!skk
From: skk@sparc.UUCP (Stuart Kreitman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: (Ne)X(T) Terminals---a hot product idea? X protocol is *efficient*
Keywords: DPS, X
Message-ID: <29@sparc.UUCP>
Date: 29 Apr 91 22:50:35 GMT
References: <1991Apr25.084827.1475@math.ucla.edu> <1991Apr26.193131.10122@wimsey.bc.ca> <15108@darkstar.ucsc.edu>
Organization: /etc/organization
Lines: 19

...
>network efficiency?  I think this is a really important issue.  I had always
>assumed that part of X's braindeadedness (!) relative to DPS was its voluminous
>network protocol.  But maybe DPS ain't so good either.  Can anyone comment?

An express goal of the X.V11 protocol specification effort was to minimize the
size of request packets and to reduce round trip requests in order to
conserve the network bandwidth.  One might partly blame the difficult 
programming model of X11 on this very efficiency.

The area of very high-bandwidth X client/server communications is of interest to
me.  I'm looking for applications classes that bog down
local or ethernet X implementations due to protocol traffic as opposed 
to graphics drawing speed. Any use of getimage/putimage immediately comes to
mind.

I would appreciate hearing from anyone with experience in this area.

(hi db! :-)