On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:55:45 +0100 Peter Rosin <p...@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
> > However, I still think 16 bits to be too little to deliver a useful > error response for something as complex as this and I wish you a happy > time telling users to read the manual of the server they are connecting > to when the client gets a blanket "no" ;-) > > Or are the servers you are planning either > A) fully capable of all screen layouts (Xvnc type server with no local > screen HW to consider) or > B) capable of only one screen layout (Windows type server with the local > screen HW deciding the layout)? > Is that why you seem eager to punt on the error case issue? > My primary concern is A, but this solution should work for everyone so it doesn't become some niche thing. How do local equivalents behave? How does Windows or RandR respond to an invalid change request? I haven't seen much more than "sod off" in the way of helpfulness from those systems either. The only addition might be that they can provide you with an enumeration of possible resolutions. Since there is some debate about this, perhaps what we can do for now is to make sure we can extend the system in the future without breaking existing clients. Instead of sending the current state upon an error, we send an error code specific chunk of data. It adds complexity to clients as they need to check the error code before they continue parsing. But only clients that need to change the screen settings need to deal with this. And it allows us to define new error codes in the future with an arbitrary payload. Rgds -- Pierre Ossman OpenSource-based Thin Client Technology System Developer Telephone: +46-13-21 46 00 Cendio AB Web: http://www.cendio.com [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc] _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list VNC-List@realvnc.com To remove yourself from the list visit: http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
