[Xcb] Where's XCBRenderFindStandardFormat ?

Barton C Massey bart at cs.pdx.edu
Tue May 17 16:52:45 PDT 2005

In message <1116368321.14688.296.camel at evo.keithp.com> you wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 14:39 -0700, Barton C Massey wrote:
> > 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? :-)
> Many small libraries make for very slow program startup.

To the extent that this is true, that's a bug with the
shared library system, and should be fixed there.  It's an
architectural mistake, IMHO, to let bad implementations
dictate bad architectures.

> We may want to consider precisely what kind of partitioning is
> appropriate here.  I suggest that we focus more on avoiding additional
> dependencies than strictly limiting code size.

Yes, certainly.  There's no reason to divide the libraries
up gratuitously.  But the libraries should be
single-function ("strong cohesion, weak coupling" in SE
parlance).  I think there's mounting evidence that this
means there will be 4-6 XCB-related shared libraries,
minimum, linked by the typical XCB app.  I think I can live
with this.  If I'm wrong, we should figure out what to do
about it.


More information about the xcb mailing list