Re: [9fans] bug in rio: unhiding deleted windows

["Rudolf Sykora" <rudolf.sykora@gmail.com>]

> the problem is that the fs proc and the keboard thread both fiddle with
> the the hidden array.  in the style of rio, the solution would be
> along the lines of sending a message (say) the keyboard thread to hide
> the window.  since windows have unique ids, sending a message like
> "hide 72" would be unambiguous.
What do you mean by unique ids? I think it is not enough to have a
unique id at just one instant. We need a unique id for a qualitatively
long time (i.e. infinite). It seems to me that numbers in /dev/wsys do
not get reused, which would be just wanted, but is it really so?

> acme has similar problems that tend to show up on laggy connections.
what actually happens?

> why?  i don't think it makes sense to say static sizes are unequivicablly bad.
> static allocation has advantages.  it's simplier and less error prone, and
It's simpler in C, because dynamic allocation in C is a pain. If I
were writing a window manager in say python, I wouldn't think about
any allocation problems, I guess. I would just make a dictionary of
windows hashed by a window's id and that would just work. Maybe I only
have a very distorted view on it. I've never programmed anything like
that.

> there are no concurrency considerations.  there are always tradeoffs.
I can't see what you mean by concurrency considerations. :(

Ruda