Closed lobin-z0x50 closed 5 years ago
I thought desktop_name
is a strange name as it is oddly specific (it might not be a desktop machine we are connecting to), so to search for a better name I took a look at the VNC specification:
+--------------+--------------+------------------------------+
| No. of bytes | Type [Value] | Description |
+--------------+--------------+------------------------------+
| 2 | U16 | framebuffer-width in pixels |
| 2 | U16 | framebuffer-height in pixels |
| 16 | PIXEL_FORMAT | server-pixel-format |
| 4 | U32 | name-length |
| name-length | U8 array | name-string |
+--------------+--------------+------------------------------+
So they just call it name
, do you think that is a better option?
According to the specification of the RFB protocol, it is written as the name associated with the desktop, so I use that property name.
I think that if it is a simple name
property, it is too abstract to be confusing.
While it is certainly ideal to be able to offload the problem of naming things to the spec, I agree name
would be a bit broad for this purpose. Could use server_name
, remote_name
or whatever (yay bikeshedding!) but happy to go with desktop_name
given the spec text.
sample code:
result (Ultra VNC Server):