Re: GTK scroll bar question

[Jan D.]

Dmitry Antipov skrev 2014-07-31 17:13:
> On 07/31/2014 03:53 PM, Jan Djärv wrote:
>
> > We want to get rid of those as they are a performance hit.
>
> Less widgets is not necessary means more performance.

Who said anything about widgets?  Less windows is waht we are talking 
about here.  Gtk+ headed in that directoin for a reason.

> > The first Gtk+ version I made did not use handle_one_xevent, but it was
> > decided that the code in handle_one_xevent should be reused.  So it is
> > a no-brainer to replace it, it is just a lot of work.
> >
> > The reason is that we have a lot of code in other places to handle timers
> > and other things (the whole xg_select.c file for example) that only comes
> > from not running the Gtk+ event loop.
>
> It just confirms that Emacs is not a first-class Gtk+ citizen and will
> always
> have OS- and so window system-specific code.

It just confirms that Emacs is wierd, not that it has to be like this.

> > It is true that Cairo don't use pixmaps
>
> What do you mean about "don't use"?

In the API for drawing images.

> * xlib: Uses the Xlib interface to the X Window System. This backend can
> target
>    Windows or Pixmaps. The Render extension is used if available, but is
> not required.
>
> (http://cairographics.org/backends).

But we don't target the Cairo backend, we target the Cairo API.

> > > In particular, this will require
> > > new redisplay interface to replace x_redisplay_interface
> >
> > No it will not.
>
> Get your favorite function from x_redisplay_interface and try to redesign
> it by using only Gtk+ and Cairo interfaces.  Do not assume that Gtk+ is
> backed by X, so no way to access underlying Display, Window, GC, etc.
> I'm pretty sure you eventually finish with gtkterm.c :-).

For Cairo almost all functions use only Cairo.  The exception is that 
they use information in GC:s.  That is because Emacs core passes around 
GC:s.  Even w32 and ns emulate GC:s to cope.

> > > With all possible respect, we can't direct each other to do or not to do
> > > something.  And we shouldn't, isn't it?
> >
> >
> > So when you can checkin to the Emacs tree, you feel you are in your
> > right to
> > break code and generally change it so that the people that try to
> > maintain
> > it can't recognize anymore?
>
> Please re-read above. I mean "do", which is not always the same as
> "checkin".

On this list "do" is the same as checkin.  Why else bring it up?

        Jan D.