Re: [Caml-list] Weak hashtables & aggressive caching

[Matt Gushee <matt@gushee.net>]

Richard Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 08:58:29AM -0600, Matt Gushee wrote:
>> It seems to me it might be useful to implement an aggressive caching 
>> strategy--i.e., since the files to be loaded are known in advance (from 
>> the command line),[...]
> 
> Please no!  When running X remotely this will cause images to be
> transferred (uncompressed) over the network and stored inside the X
> server when they may not even be viewed.  This sort of thing is
> already a serious problem with programs like 'eog', making them
> virtually unusable remotely.

Hmm ... well, I happen to have the heretical view that in an age of 
cheap, powerful PCs and inexpensive software, running X remotely is just 
plain absurd in most situations. Okay, yeah, there are thin clients, but 
who actually uses them--other than a few large corporations, for whom I 
have no sympathy?

However, I also know that my philosophy is on the fringe, and from a 
practical standpoint people actually do some of these absurd things, so 
... thanks for the heads-up.

Wait a minute, though. According to the Gdk reference manual, 
<http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/2.0/gdk/gdk-Pixbufs.html#id2861842>

   Pixbufs are client-side images.

If that's true, I don't understand how loading pixbufs from files would 
affect the X server.

-- 
Matt Gushee
: Bantam - lightweight file manager : matt.gushee.net/software/bantam/ :
: RASCL's A Simple Configuration Language :     matt.gushee.net/rascl/ :