From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Perry E. Metzger" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Can we go GTK-only? Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:54:38 -0400 Message-ID: <20161031135438.317114a2@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> References: <24db2975-17ca-ad01-20c8-df12071fa89a@dancol.org> <4615E73A-19E2-4B79-9889-D3FA686DDDE6@raeburn.org> <11E61536-1345-4B81-999D-2E17F8B14C62@dancol.org> <83a8dkpl67.fsf@gnu.org> <32899811-83bb-e1f0-4f82-3e41846d7d0c@dancol.org> <8360o8pisk.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477938273 13919 195.159.176.226 (31 Oct 2016 18:24:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:24:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Daniel Colascione , emacs-devel@gnu.org, raeburn@raeburn.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 31 19:24:29 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c1HFS-0007XC-JV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:23:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37706 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1HFV-0002eL-8M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:23:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40375) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1GnC-0001Dq-Ob for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:54:43 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1GnB-0007sD-QV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:54:42 -0400 Original-Received: from hacklheber.piermont.com ([2001:470:30:84:e276:63ff:fe62:3400]:35435) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1GnA-0007pO-8L; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:54:40 -0400 Original-Received: from snark.cb.piermont.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hacklheber.piermont.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CEB123E; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:54:39 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from jabberwock.cb.piermont.com (jabberwock.cb.piermont.com [10.160.2.107]) by snark.cb.piermont.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A1FA2DE021; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:54:39 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <8360o8pisk.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:470:30:84:e276:63ff:fe62:3400 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:209033 Archived-At: On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 18:47:23 +0200 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, raeburn@raeburn.org, > > emacs-devel@gnu.org From: Daniel Colascione > > Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:59:11 -0700 > > > > Of course there's no direct access to glyph matrices, but you can > > imagine a scheme where both of the two parts above each have an > > idea of what desired layout should be. > > That's exactly the part that needs to be carefully designed. It is > nowhere near what we have now, because the current expression of > "the idea of what the desired layout should be" is the glyph > matrices, which in their present shape cannot be shared by several > processes. > > I'm not even sure we could come up with a useful scheme that would > allow such a division in a way that will let the communications > between the two work efficiently. It remains to be shown that this > is feasible. So there would seem to be two obvious ways to keep the two matrices in sync. One would be to record all the changes made on the one side as they are made and serialize that. The other way would be to use a dynamic programming algorithm to find the minimum set of differences and transmit them. Given that redisplay is likely nearly continuous, I'd say the former makes more sense. Perry -- Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com