[Xcb] magical callback funness

Barton C Massey bart at cs.pdx.edu
Fri Mar 25 01:26:16 PST 2005

In message <20050325091606.GI1769 at minilop.net> you wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 12:44:24AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Jamey Sharp wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 06:57:08PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> I'm more concerned about whether it will make XCB harder to use. I like
> the fact that the current implementation has the ability to detect
> errors at run-time both for unexpected replies and for expected replies
> that never come. This change will make those run-time checks harder.

You and me both.  I think the magic bit isn't that hard to
add, and only requests that can generate multiple replies
should accept them---I could be talked out of this view,

> Yeah, it could do that, but that involves a linear-time walk through the
> queue: not so good, but the best I'd come up with so far. (Also I built
> an abstraction layer around the linked lists in XCB a long time ago, and
> that layer makes this particular walk a little awkward. It's also become
> a performance limit. It'll go away eventually.) I think a better data
> structure will be necessary, but we'll have to see how the initial
> implementation falls out to figure out how it should work.

So I'm quite confused by the XCB data structures at this
point.  Is there some reason that you don't have an
array-based queue that's binary searchable or direct-indexed
by sequence number?

> Yeah, my comment was a joke too. Dead-pan delivery is less effective in
> e-mail. I suppose matters were made worse as people who don't know you
> might be inclined to take me seriously.

If anybody's taking anybody seriously around here, I'm sure
we're all in big trouble.   Go to bed; it's late :-).


More information about the xcb mailing list