Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rice!dboyes
From: dboyes@rice.edu (David Boyes)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Will PEX become popular? (In English)
Message-ID: <5665@brazos.Rice.edu>
Date: 11 Mar 90 03:00:50 GMT
References: <$*-#G+_@rpi.edu> <1573@wm120_no0.rinfo.sumiden.co.jp>
Reply-To: dboyes@brazos.rice.edu (David Boyes)
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
Lines: 48

In article <1573@wm120_no0.rinfo.sumiden.co.jp> sato@wm120_no0.rinfo.sumiden.co.jp ( Kenya SATO @ SEI ) writes:
>>>Does anybody doubt that PEX will be popular after being released at
>>>the beginning of 1991?
>Anyway, I wanted to know if the concept of PEX, which means the PEX
>protocol, would be popular.

Given these days of faster network media and more efficient
network interface hardware, I can speculate a bit. PEX as a
specific implementation of PHIGS in a client/server model will
probably have a limited lifespan; PHIGS+ and PHIGS++ are already
in the pipe as enhancements to the PHIGS standard, and
implementations are even available now from your favorite
Three-Lettered Vendors.

The concept of dividing the computational portion of a graphics
application from the actual physical rendering of the image by
composing the image in an formal abstract protocol is much more
interesting. Given large host A with large computational
resources and a network connection and desktop workstation B with
smaller resources and nifty graphics hardware, it makes a great
deal of sense to allow each machine to do what it does best and
communicate via a formal protocol such as the one suggested in
the PEX research.

Something like this protocol may also go a long way toward some
of the difficulties that arise when dealing with heterogeneous
environments.  IBM has done (in my opinion) a very nice
implementation of PHIGS over X that really makes choosing one of
their machines as a computational engine a palatable option,
but much of their graphics display hardware is ill-suited to
high-speed raster imaging (the RX/6000 may change this). The
choice of X as a least common denominator transport for the image
data makes it possible to use the Sparcstation in the next room
or the RT down the hall with equal facility without having to
deal with compiler problems or OS dependencies.

In summary, I think PEX is not the final answer, but it's a good
step towards an answer.

>Kenya SATO ( sato%rinfo.sumiden.co.jp@uunet.uu.net )



-- 
David Boyes       |  "Where's the ka-boom? There's supposed to be an
dboyes@rice.edu   |  Earth-shattering ka-boom!...Heavens! Someone has
                  |  stolen the Illudium Q-38 Explosive Space Modulator!
"Delays, delays!" |  The Earth creature has *stolen* the Space Modulator!"