You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Certain requests in the XCB-XML file are labeled as combine-adjacent. This is an indicator that it contains some list of items that can be taken apart and put back together without any logical errors. While it's intended to be used by the X server as a way to buffer certain requests, we could take advantage of it here to ensure that we can send very large requests without going over the size limit and leading to an error.
What I envision is a new method for the Request trait like this:
Where limit is the maximum request size for the connection. Then, during code generation, we could override split for combine-adjacent types so that it's able to "split" these requests into many parts.
I'm aware that, for modern BigRequests X11, a request would need to be several billion bytes in length in order to violate the size limit, meaning that this wouldn't come up often. This is just to ensure correctness.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Certain requests in the XCB-XML file are labeled as
combine-adjacent
. This is an indicator that it contains some list of items that can be taken apart and put back together without any logical errors. While it's intended to be used by the X server as a way to buffer certain requests, we could take advantage of it here to ensure that we can send very large requests without going over the size limit and leading to an error.What I envision is a new method for the
Request
trait like this:Where
limit
is the maximum request size for the connection. Then, during code generation, we could overridesplit
forcombine-adjacent
types so that it's able to "split" these requests into many parts.I'm aware that, for modern BigRequests X11, a request would need to be several billion bytes in length in order to violate the size limit, meaning that this wouldn't come up often. This is just to ensure correctness.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: