SDL vs. X

SDL Development
1

Hi,

when i?m reading things about sdl (also in this maillist)

  • e.g. things like network support (am i right : remote displays?) -
    i?m wondering if sdl will someday obsolete X.

(interesting imagination)

someday this look like this :

sdl manages the hardware devices and the virtual displays, etc.
an X server works as an brigde between X applications and SDL
(ergo: the main stuff is in SDL and the X server is only the
X protocol driver)

the local X libraries could work directly on SDL if the app
uses the local display.

…

some days i planned to get the x sources and rewrite the communication
code - it should use sysv-ipc or something like that instead of socket,
but now - with sdl - there could be a much better solution.

what do you think ?

regards,
enrico-------------------------------------------
lets go to another world … oberon

2

I don’t know about SDL obsoleting X, but I just wanted to point out that X
already can use SysV IPC or direct access to memory for faster local
displays. Most of the time it’s using SysV IPC if you run it on the same
machine as the client.

Warren
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________Subject: [SDL] SDL vs. X
Author: at internet-mail
Date: 8/26/99 4:43 PM

[…snip…]

some days i planned to get the x sources and rewrite the communication
code - it should use sysv-ipc or something like that instead of socket,
but now - with sdl - there could be a much better solution.

what do you think ?

regards,
enrico

lets go to another world … oberon

3

Warren Downs wrote:

I don’t know about SDL obsoleting X, but I just wanted to point out that X
already can use SysV IPC or direct access to memory for faster local
displays. Most of the time it’s using SysV IPC if you run it on the same
machine as the client.
hmm… my XF86 doesn?t seem to use it.
(e.g. if clients cant connect, i get error messages like
_X11TransSocket … cant connect … looks like it?s using sockets.

am i using the wrong X ?

ew.-------------------------------------------
lets go to another world … oberon

4

That’s the normal message. But if you do a “netstat -n | grep unix” and if you
have a list of connected UNIX domain sockets, most likely they’re connected to
your X server.

I guess I was confusing SysV IPC and UNIX domain sockets. UNIX domain sockets
are local, high perf connections, though. And DGA is a shared-memory solution
for even higher performance (albeit only when running as root).

Warren
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________Subject: Re: [SDL] SDL vs. X
Author: at internet-mail
Date: 8/29/99 7:33 PM

Warren Downs wrote:

I don’t know about SDL obsoleting X, but I just wanted to point out that X
already can use SysV IPC or direct access to memory for faster local
displays. Most of the time it’s using SysV IPC if you run it on the same
machine as the client.
hmm… my XF86 doesn’t seem to use it.
(e.g. if clients cant connect, i get error messages like
_X11TransSocket … cant connect … looks like it’s using sockets.

am i using the wrong X ?

ew.

lets go to another world … oberon