Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!ncar!ico!auto-trol!marbru
From: marbru@auto-trol.UUCP (Martin Brunecky)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: extension philosophy [was Re: audio servers]
Message-ID: <780@auto-trol.UUCP>
Date: 14 Mar 90 16:53:30 GMT
References: <776@auto-trol.UUCP> <9003121606.AA03191@expo.lcs.mit.edu> <4840@crltrx.crl.dec.com> <1837@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <3015@bacchus.dec.com>
Reply-To: marbru@auto-trol.COM (Martin Brunecky)
Organization: Auto-trol Technology, Denver
Lines: 47

In article <3015@bacchus.dec.com> klee@decwrl.dec.com writes:
>
>You have a good point, in that too many extensions is probably not a
>good idea.  I think, however, that no extensions is also not a good
>idea.  Extensions provide powerful features that are generally
>inefficient or impossible to implement in the client.  Of course,

  .... ( I did not want to say NO extensions )....

>
>Limiting extensions to those that provide really useful functionality
>is probably a good idea.  Making the specifications to the extensions
>open so that anyone can use them is another good idea.  I think all the
>extensions mentioned above (except the audio extension, which I don't
>think anyone is really working on now anyway) are useful ideas with open
>specifications. 
>
	O.K. The problem I see is that all those really usefull
	extensions will make the server HUGE. Example is the XNeWs
        server, where people not using NeWs pay the penalty of
	the server support for NeWs, even though they don't use it.

	Another problem is extension loading/adding to the server.
	Most users will depend on vendor provided servers, with very
	little or no way to bind-in additional extensions, even though
	such extensions could be provided by the third party.

	The "big" extensions add a whole class of functionality.
	PEX, DisplayPostscript, XImage. The whole new dimension.
	Therefore, I would rather like to see such "extensions" as 
	specialized servers, activated where needed, living in
	separate address space. Since many extensions demand really
        efficient access to the X server, sharing lots of X window
	semantics, they need an efficient, (shared memory based?),
	low level  server-to-server protocol. 

	On the other hand, there are extensions which are more "fixes"
	or minor enhancements to the core protocol. SHAPE is an
	excellent example. Such extensions deserve their place
	in the X server, and I don't object to it.


-- 
=*= Opinions presented here are solely of my own and not those of Auto-trol =*=
Martin Brunecky                   marbru@auto-trol.COM
(303) 252-2499                    {...}ncar!ico!auto-trol!marbru
Auto-trol Technology Corp. 12500 North Washington St., Denver, CO 80241-2404