[Xcb] GSoC proposal questions
mceier at gmail.com
Thu Apr 2 11:33:15 PDT 2009
Peter Harris pisze:
> Mariusz Ceier wrote:
>> Peter Harris pisze:
>>> Mariusz Ceier wrote:
>>>> It seems to be a small extension ([0,), so it can be good to
>>>> implement it during community bonding period, what do you think ?
>>> It is a small extension, but to implement it you will have to touch
>>> everything from xcb.xsd through c_client.py. So, yes, implementing XGE
>>> would be an excellent way to "get your feet wet".
>> So trying to implement it can give me in-depth knowledge of XCB ( e.g.
>> what can be done easily and not in XCB ), sounds great :) But I must
>> warn that this is not my primary goal, so it may end up being unusable,
>> or incomplete.
> XGE may not be your goal, but it is a prerequisite for your goal. If XGE
> is unusable, then Xi2 (and probably Xkb2) will also be unusable.
thanks, that changes my point of view :)
> As you point out, XGE *is* small. So I suspect an incomplete
> implementation would be rather unlikely. :-)
I hope so :)
> Also note that xcb/libxcb already has some XGE support (for Xlib), so
> it's not like you're starting from scratch. There just isn't a way to
> describe XGE events in xcb/proto yet.
If it has some support for XGE, it is good for me :)
I guess, I should get to know XCB better ( and that's my plan, during
community bonding period ) :)
> Peter Harris
More information about the Xcb