From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:36:41 -0700 From: "Russ Cox" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] [plan9port] graphics In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: Topicbox-Message-UUID: 70509e58-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > when this came up a while ago, you suggested one devdraw > server per namespace. after some consideration i convinced > myself you were right. programs like rio could be much closer > to the plan 9 source. lately i've been considering writing an > X server extension implementing devdraw. (i realize this might > be problematic on osx.) > > why did you choose to run 1 devdraw per graphical program? i still think that the right long-term solution is a single devdraw that can handle many windows. this was easier to get running and get right (which is not to say that it worked the first time!), and i don't want to waste any more time on x than i already have. responding to earlier questions, you're still supposed to use draw(3). drawfcall(3) is subject to change. russ