----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 4:04 AM Subject: Re: VNC-List digest, Vol 1 #202 - 23 msgs
> > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:tony@;instaview.com] > > > I vote NO.. ( yes i know it wasn't a poll ) > > > > I vote NO too! > > > > > > > > Why you ask? Because it starts to get out of what VNC is > > > designed for, and > > > its a slippery slope.. before long we will end up with a 20mb > > > install file and > > > require 128mb of ram to run. > > > Maybe someone should write a spec for a plugin arcitecture for VNC and have > the base RealVNC support it. You can then have a bloaty VNC with > filetransfer, sound, SSL etc..., or just the plain vanillla version, you > choose what plugins you want. This would also help stop the raft of VNC > spinoffs, as the features could be written as plugins to standard VNC... > It would also allow people to mix and match, where at the moment, you have > to choose 1 flavour VNC over another, and non all features are available in > all versions. > > Just my 2p worth... > Having a plugin architecture doesn't guarantee any two particular plugins will work together. I think it is better to find a flavor of VNC that does what you want or hack the code together to make your own rather than trying to retrofit a whole new API for plugins into VNC. Not only that, where do you write hooks for plugins? Encoding, screen updates, encryption, file transfer, printing, sound, all of these have been thrown around, but non of them can be made to fit "neatly" into one category of plugins, they all need access to different parts of the VNC process. Once you go that low level you might as well make your own flavor. Just my views. -- William Hooper I'm going crazy. Wanna come along ? _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
