eddie.caplan@H.CS.CMU.EDU.UUCP (04/11/87)
V11 permits graphics to be done directly to Pixmaps, etc. My question is about how this is implemented. It seems to me that in-memory graphic routines do not need to make the expensive calls to the server. One way this could be implemented is to have a device-dependent runtime library for in-memory graphics linked into the client's program if the client chooses. I believe that this effiency issue is important, especially for those of us who want to (and can) create complex images in memory and then simply BLT them onscreen.
black@masscomp.UUCP (Sam Black) (04/13/87)
In article <1987.4.11.13.31.21.eddie.caplan@h.cs.cmu.edu> eddie.caplan@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >V11 permits graphics to be done directly to Pixmaps, etc. My question >is about how this is implemented. It seems to me that in-memory >graphic routines do not need to make the expensive calls to the >server. One way this could be implemented is to have a >device-dependent runtime library for in-memory graphics linked into >the client's program if the client chooses. One of the main reasons I see in having the server do PIXMAP drawing is the sharing of resources. Another is to avoid large executables and relinking for different devices (assuming a different library for each PIXMAP depth or device). It allows devices with off-screen memory to utilize their capabilities even for PIXMAPs. Finally, it provides a consistent interface for all drawing. >I believe that this effiency issue is important, especially for those >of us who want to (and can) create complex images in memory and then >simply BLT them onscreen. X11 does not prohibit this; you can use PutImage to do just what you want. Remember, just because the capability is there doesn't mean you have to use it. ---------------------------------------------- There are only two kinds of planes in the world: Fighters and targets. - 1Lt. Steven Brown, 63 TFTS ...!{decvax,allegra,harvard,seismo}!masscomp!black ----------------------------------------------