[Xcb] Where's XCBRenderFindStandardFormat ?
jkolb at brandeis.edu
Tue May 17 15:28:23 PDT 2005
Barton C Massey wrote:
> In message <428A4337.20807 at brandeis.edu> you wrote:
>>Keith Packard wrote:
>>>XCB isn't big on convenience functions.
>>We seem to be hitting this quite a lot when converting from xlib to xcb.
>> I know there are some record, and randr that I've had to reimplement
>>in my test programs. Do we need a more proper set of libraries ontop of
>>xcb? Some XCBAux<Extension><FunctionName> (to go along with our
> You bet! Vincent started on something like this; what we
> might want is some coherent analysis about what might be
> missing that we're not needing right this second :-), that
> we can start to turn into a collection of small API designs.
Yes, I was looking at this (not too closely though) and I like the idea,
I just feel like we need a plan (more structure) so things don't get too
messy. Vincent does good work.
>>Or is this outside of the scope of the XCB project?
> Absolutely not. As long as we make it sit above XCB, rather
> than in or under it, we're happy to have all the useful
> stuff we can gather.
>>like the stuff currently in xcb-util is a bit unwieldly and certainly
>>doesn't provide the same extension support as xlib. But if we follow
>>this approach then we'll have just another Xlibs with different names.
> Not at all. First of all, these libraries will be atop XCB,
> instead of aside it as with Xlib. Second of all, multiple
> single-purpose libraries---don't want it or like it? don't
> link against it. Third of all, small size. Fourth, thread
> transparency and latency hiding. Shall I continue? :-)
So what should we do with extension specific helper functions that sit
on top of the protocol? I imagine it would be one library of helper
functions for each extension? How do we want to organize this?
>>Second, the naming convention as mentioned earlier... is this
>>standardized somewhere? If not we need to come up with something. All
>>the autogenerated stuff is fine but is there a convention for
> Yes, it's conventional, but obviously no one including me is
> very happy with the conventions. There needs to be some
> hard thinking here, I think.
What is the convention for variables/structs etc? I haven't seen
anything on the wiki about it, but I would be glad to write something up
if someone provides me with the information. So far I've seen some
types in all caps, some field names with mixedCase and some with
More information about the xcb