[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (no subject)
Re: (no subject)
Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:34:44 -0500 (EST)
Sorry to flood everyone, but I wanted to add one thing. Architecting
screen into front-end-back-end wouldn't necessarily mean that it would
require a windows front-end. Actually, what I would envision is that
screen-5.x itself would have much the same functionality as it does today,
as in strictly terminal based. Internally however it would be modularized
so that other front-ends besides the one it comes with could be created.
Those third-party clients could link against, let's say libscreen, and use
any gui toolkit imaginable (for that matter, if the protocol to speak to a
screen back were well-known enough, an app wouldn't even necessarily have
to link against an official screen library, it could just 'speak' screen
to a socket, and be written in any language, say Java).
I don't want to scare anyone by implying that screen should move into the
windowing world, just allow for it. :)
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 02:41:17PM -0500, jmartin wrote:
I guess it wouldn't be too difficult to take existing screen code and hack
it into a GUI. Whatever code allows one instance of screen to reconnect
(-x) to the already persistant screen session could be integrated into a
GUI. But that's far from an actual API.
The important thing is that IMHO the backend shouldn't talk to the
X server, but to the frontend process which does all the displaying.
I want to keep the backend simple and stable, I don't want it to
be linked against Xlib.
Michael Schroeder address@hidden
Re: (no subject), Raymond Page, 2005/01/12