Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: The problem of fitting your application into XtAppMainLoop. Message-ID: <6349@ficc.uu.net> Date: 28 Sep 89 16:24:46 GMT References: <61@eileen.mga.com> Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 26 In article <61@eileen.mga.com>, gjc@eileen.mga.com (George J. Carrette) writes: > At first glance it is very difficult if not impossible in some > applications to always return within a short time from procedures > invoked by the XtAppAddWorkProc mechanism in the XtAppMainLoop. (And > indeed going to a WorkProc itself requires a callback to QUEUE some > work rather than to try to complete the work while inside the > callback). Several months ago I argued that the X model of putting all the intelligence in the application is a poor choice, because it forces you to recode an X application into an event loop. There are window systems where the server handles most of the dirty work. In Intuition, for instance, you can set up a window such that any window manipulation short of a resize request (moving windows, depth arranging, menus, and even toggle gadgets) is handled without bothering the application. An application can safely turn off resizing, put a sign up saying "I'm busy", and go away and do real work. The event-loop model is fine for programs that are essentially editors, but it's not universally applicable. If it was, xterm would be a lot less popular tool (:-> :-<). -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "That is not the Usenet tradition, but it's a solidly-entrenched U delusion now." -- brian@ucsd.Edu (Brian Kantor)