From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28329 invoked by alias); 29 May 2004 21:17:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 28322 invoked from network); 29 May 2004 21:17:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sccrmhc12.comcast.net) (204.127.202.56) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 May 2004 21:17:04 -0000 Received: from [67.172.156.222] (c-67-172-156-222.client.comcast.net[67.172.156.222]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <20040529211703012007ej5te>; Sat, 29 May 2004 21:17:04 +0000 Subject: Re: (Mac?) Interface q's From: Eric McDonald To: Tom Schaub Cc: xconq7@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <4D5CCCBE-B1B1-11D8-98DA-0003934474B0@mac.com> References: <4D5CCCBE-B1B1-11D8-98DA-0003934474B0@mac.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1085865279.4061.187.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 21:17:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00448.txt.bz2 On Sat, 2004-05-29 at 14:46, Tom Schaub wrote: > First, how common is use of the Sequential option? I prefer this form > of play, since I am usually playing solitaire. Is the structure of the > Xconq code such that separate testing of a game module is needed to > assure proper behavior in simultaneous, multi-player mode? The separate testing of the simultaneous play doesn't hurt. I think quite a few of the games in the library are sequential by default, and I think it is probably the preference of many people to play in sequential mode. As far as your Mac questions are concerned, Hans is probably the best one to answer those, since I don't even own a Mac that is capable of running Xconq right now. Unfortunately, Hans is going to be busy with the real world for at least the next week. I am assuming that Stan might be able help you with the questions though. As far as your fourth question is concerned: the next unit is scheduled at the level of the Xconq kernel. If an interface wanted to provide an alternate unit scheduling, it would have to run a scheduler at the interface level. I doubt that the Mac interface has a separate scheduler, but I haven't looked at its code too much. Eric