[Xcb] GSoC proposal questions

Peter Harris pharris at opentext.com
Thu Apr 2 11:17:30 PDT 2009

Mariusz Ceier wrote:
> Peter Harris pisze:
>> Mariusz Ceier wrote:
>>> It seems to be a small extension ([0,[1]), so it can be good to
>>> implement it during community bonding period, what do you think ?
>> It is a small extension, but to implement it you will have to touch
>> everything from xcb.xsd through c_client.py. So, yes, implementing XGE
>> would be an excellent way to "get your feet wet".
> So trying to implement it can give me in-depth knowledge of XCB ( e.g.
> what can be done easily and not in XCB ), sounds great :) But I must
> warn that this is not my primary goal, so it may end up being unusable,
> or incomplete.

XGE may not be your goal, but it is a prerequisite for your goal. If XGE
is unusable, then Xi2 (and probably Xkb2) will also be unusable.

As you point out, XGE *is* small. So I suspect an incomplete
implementation would be rather unlikely. :-)

Also note that xcb/libxcb already has some XGE support (for Xlib), so
it's not like you're starting from scratch. There just isn't a way to
describe XGE events in xcb/proto yet.

Peter Harris
               Open Text Connectivity Solutions Group
Peter Harris                    http://www.opentext.com/connectivity
Research and Development        Phone: +1 905 762 6001
pharris at opentext.com            Toll Free: 1 877 359 4866

More information about the Xcb mailing list