Adi Oanca <adioanca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Workspace needs separate Screen objects, because it has to store > > the > > configuration of every single one. It also should keep this > > information > > available when such a monitor is temporarily not available (and > > therefore, doesn't have a Screen object at all). > > With my first paragraph, I wanted to point out that the current > > (Physical)Screen class and the virtual one do not have a lot of > > common > > concepts - I don't think it makes sense to introduce a common base > > class for them. > Although I hold my opinion, go do was you wish. :-) And although I still don't see the common base class of those, I think you've convinced me that it's a good idea to have a separate class doing this. That also means that this class has to take care of the configurations of the screens and their layout, while each workspace would then have a different configuration. BTW I've seen that there exist a "port replicator" for Windows (around US$ 200 each) that allow you to have several users logged into a single machine incl. the graphic output. In our design, you would need to write a multi-head aware driver (or export a driver for each head, anyway), and then you could either use all screens at once, or have the app_server divide them between several users (the latter is definitely R2, though) :-) Bye, Axel.