Robert Webb (webb++at++cgl.citri.edu.au)
Mon, 2 May 1994 11:20:32 +1100 (EST)
> The question is if people want to run their program
> on one machine and have the output appear on the other. We do not
> support this and wonder what the reasons would be for it.
>
> Since performance considerations *dictate* that graphics appear on a
> local machine, what practical or application demands would be inspiration
> for such a requirement?
We do not have debuggers on the many Indigos, only on the main machine. So
debugging a Performer application would only be possible from that machine's
console, which is already in high demand. It is far more convenient to stay
seated at my desk to debug my code.
Testing whether the code works at all on a multi-processor machine, performance
considerations aside, would also be possible without having to get time on the
main machine's console.
We have Performer 1.0, and it works across the network as far as I can tell,
just following the DISPLAY variable. Has this functionality been removed for
Performer 1.2? Why would functionality be removed when clearly it is still
desired by the users (going by the stuff that's been sent to this mailing
list, and my own personal needs)? Performer just uses gl, which runs over the
network, so it seems like there has been a conscious decision to stop it from
doing the same. If this functionality was of no use, why was gl made to run
over the network a few years ago?
--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Rob. (webb++at++godzilla.cgl.citri.edu.au)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:50:16 PDT