Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!sdcsvax!ucbvax!VAXA.ISI.EDU!raveling
From: raveling@VAXA.ISI.EDU (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: X V10 XOpenDisplay - should it assume hostname:0??
Message-ID: <8709281634.AA02066@>
Date: Mon, 28-Sep-87 12:34:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: .8709281634.AA02066
Posted: Mon Sep 28 12:34:05 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 29-Sep-87 06:20:03 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 35


John Sellens suggested:

	Currently, it seems that the X V10.4 XOpenDisplay requires
	either an argument or an environment variable, and if both of
	of them are missing, or if a display number is not given,
	then XOpenDisplay will fail.  My question is: isn't it
	reasonable for it to assume the current host and display 0
	if either or both are missing?
	
    In my opinion this is eminently reasonable.  I'd rather have Xlib
    take a reasonable default than to have to code the defaulting into
    each client we write.

Jim Gettys answered:

	Not really; there are people who run more than server from a single
	machine.  This was true for VS100's, and is true today for some
	VAXstation II/GPX machines (dual headed) ...
	
	It is more than slightly irritating if other people's mistakes pop
	up windows on your display. ... It seemed best to return an error
	rather than blindly continue.

    We haven't, to my knowledge, had that sort of threat yet in using
    X in our corner of ISI.  In our environment the benefits of this
    defaulting would outweigh the risks.

    BTW, I'm using a two-headed Bobcat; others on our project have
    private single-headed Bobcats at this time.


---------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@vaxa.isi.edu