From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3e1162e60606282059q845f4aare490422cf7f37b81@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 20:59:38 -0700
From: "David Leimbach" <leimy2k@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] [plan9port] graphics
In-Reply-To: <20060629020408.GC17417@submarine>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <ee9e417a0606281046u10a8a596t5875dbcf3e8e8546@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060629020408.GC17417@submarine>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 701c346a-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 6/28/06, Roman Shaposhnick <rvs@sun.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 10:46:29AM -0700, Russ Cox wrote:
> > Over the weekend I shuffled things around.  Instead of
> > linking X code into every program, there is now a single
> > program, called devdraw, that contains X interface code.
> > Graphical programs now fork and exec a devdraw and then
> > speak a simple protocol to its standard input and standard
> > output to read from the keyboard and mouse and draw on the
> > screen.  Devdraw is not a threaded program.  It runs on the
> > standard system stack and uses select(2) to manage its two
> > inputs.  It uses only a single connection to the X server.
> > My hope is that doing things the Official Unix Way inside
> > devdraw will eliminate the problems people have reported.
>
>   This sounds interesting enough, but what's the "language"
>   an application is supposed to talk to devdraw binary in ?
>   Is it just the draw(3) ?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>

I'd think you're still supposed to talk in draw(3) for portability's
sake right? :-)

Some protocols don't have to be fully open, but it might be
interesting to know about them.

Dave