[Xcb] naming convention again ;)

[Jamey Sharp]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 04:31:06PM -0500, Jeremy A. Kolb wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Jamey Sharp wrote:
> > If the name "data" were selected just because it makes Mesa code
> > generation easy, I wouldn't approve. In that case you should load
> > glx.xml from xcb-proto and look up the correct list name for each
> > request: this is easy to do when you're already processing a bunch of
> > XML anyway, and it's one of the big reasons why we built a protocol
> > description language.
> 
> Ah yes.  The problem is that all of these replies have (roughly) 
> the exact same format.  The fields had to be called data because there was no 
> other way to autogenerate them from the glapi.xml file.  In X11 glx they 
> use one structure to deal with all of these GLXSingleReply), and 
> something similar when sending the request, we couldn't do the same in XCB.

I may still be confused, but I think you missed my point. When
generating code for GetBooleanv from glapi.xml, why can't you do
something like this XPath query across XCB's glx.xml?
	request[@name="GetBooleanv"]/reply/list/@name

That particular example will evaluate to "data" -- so you shouldn't have
to hardcode that string anywhere.

> For example in GetBooleanv depending on retval you'll have different lists 
> starting at different points in the padding.  If there is only one value 
> to return it will be returned in pad4.  Since this is repeated for a ton 
> of replies it was much easier to give consistent names.

We still need to deal with that, and I'd forgotten about it, but it's
not related to reply list naming, right?

--Jamey
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xcb/attachments/20051212/f67acc06/attachment.pgp