[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Possible problem with Gnus
From: |
Andy Tai |
Subject: |
Re: Possible problem with Gnus |
Date: |
Sat, 22 May 2004 20:48:56 -0700 (PDT) |
Hi, sorry the previous mail was sent prematurely. I
meant I can look into implementing this interface, but
I cannot promise at a time frame right now.
Andy
--- Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:
> Andy, we have been talking about problems in Emacs
> code
> to display postscript in the middle of a document.
>
> > The sane thing to do is to serialize the
> whole GhostScript
> > operation to have at most one GhostScript
> process running, and
> > to not restart this process as long as
> images remain to be
> > rendered.
> >
> > That does sound desirable. However,
> >
> > For this to work, one has to stop
> passing the information
> > through an XPixMap but has to go through a
> file or pipe.
> >
> > Using a pixmap is preferable, in general. Why
> do you think
> > using a single Ghostscript process is
> incompatible with using
> > a pixmap?
>
> Because the interface to GhostScript that is
> used for passing the
> XPixMap Id and the respective sizes is queried
> just at the start of
> GhostScript.
>
> I think the solution for this is to make a new
> interface
> to allow Emacs to specify the pixmap to an existing
> GhostScript
> process when reusing it for another image.
>
> Andy, can you implement such an interface for Emacs
> to use?
>
> > In contrast, preview-latex first deals
> with on-screen images.
> > Once they are dealt with, it reverts to
> rendering the rest
> > off-screen.
> >
> > That would be a good optimization to add.
>
> Rendering off-screen material is actually not as
> much an optimization,
> but an interactivity feature. It means that
> once GhostScript is
> through, scrolling through the file is not
> computationally expensive.
>
> However, if some document has thousands of
> images, it would be saner
> to render them just to disk in case you'll need
> them, but not burden
> Emacs' memory with them unless one actually
> moves there.
>
> That makes sense. Can that be done easily with
> reuse of a
> single GhostScript process, with the existing
> GhostScript features?
> If not, what new feature do we need?
- Re: Possible problem with Gnus, (continued)
- Re: Possible problem with Gnus, Reiner Steib, 2004/05/12
- Re: Possible problem with Gnus, David Kastrup, 2004/05/12
- Re: Possible problem with Gnus, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/13
- Re: Possible problem with Gnus, David Kastrup, 2004/05/13
- Re: Possible problem with Gnus, Stefan Monnier, 2004/05/13
- Re: Possible problem with Gnus, David Kastrup, 2004/05/13
- Re: Possible problem with Gnus, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/14
- Re: Possible problem with Gnus, David Kastrup, 2004/05/14
- Re: Possible problem with Gnus, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/15
- Re: Possible problem with Gnus, Andy Tai, 2004/05/23
- Re: Possible problem with Gnus,
Andy Tai <=
Re: Gnus for next release, Richard Stallman, 2004/05/10