[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
More information about the xcb