XTrap in X11R7 - your Nov 2008 posting

[Yaakov (Cygwin/X)]

On 2010-03-16 14:16, Rob 613 wrote:
> My information remains accurate.

Oh really?  How so, exactly?  Remember there is a difference between 
fact and opinion.

> I am neither refering to any new brokenness in Record - as one of the
> original developers of it I am refering to its design flaws, as well
> as the cumbersome nature of needing to use two extensions.
 >
 > This is absolutely not about porting code to use XTest, since that
 > absolutely covers none of the necessary functionality.

Obviously the rest of the X Consortium didn't agree with you, as XTrap 
was deprecated in favour of XTest/RECORD in X11R6.0:

http://www.x.org/releases/X11R7.5/doc/man/man1/xtrap.1.html#sect6

That was *16 years ago*.  In fact that is SO old, that DEC is mentioned 
as the primary developer, and they disappeared in the late '90s.

Then in June 2008 it was agreed by the current X.Org devs that:

> XTrap offers no functionality over RECORD/XTest [...]
> XTrap does not support capturing replies, and it has limited support
> for extensions.  The XTestFakeInput request and XETrap_SimulateXEvent
> are identical semantically [...]
> RECORD/XTest is, in short, a superset of XTrap in terms of functionality.

But I will give you credit for disproving this statement:

> but no-one who remembers this stuff is still alive

FWIW.

> I would absolutely be happy to speak with the new X.Org folks about
> it.  Can you think of a particular person to speak with?

You may take this to the upstream mailing list if you wish, but knowing 
the current development plan, I strongly suggest you not waste your and 
others' time and just port your software to XTest/RECORD.


Yaakov
Cygwin/X

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://x.cygwin.com/docs/
FAQ:                   http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/