[Xcb] [PATCH x2] Add protocol descriptions for GE and XFree86VidMode

[Peter Harris]

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Mariusz Ceier wrote:
> Peter Harris pisze:
>> Mariusz Ceier wrote:
>>> Peter Harris pisze:
>>>> These two patches add protocol descriptions for Generic Event Extension
>>>> and XFree86VidMode.
>>>>
>>> Shouldn't Generic event be also defined in ge.xml ?
>>
>> Good question.
>>
>> From my perspective, xcb_genericevent_generic_event_t shouldn't be
>> defined in XML any more than xcb_generic_event_t should be[1]. For that
>> matter, xcb_ge_event_t is already defined in libxcb/xcb.h.
> Current xcb_ge_event_t have some meaningless members like pad1 ...

pad0 should be renamed to "extension", but even the generated version
would have to have the rest of the padding.

> What about:
>  * changing extension-name to GE - so we don't have ridiculously long
> names ...

For an extension with only one request? That would be poor Huffman
coding. (I think I've been reading too much Larry Wall :-) )

>  * removing xcb_ge_event_t structure from xcb.h

The generated event structure wouldn't include the full_sequence field...

>  * including ge.h header generated from ge.xml
>  * adding "typedef xcb_ge_generic_event_t xcb_ge_event_t;" - for
> compatibility with current apps that could already use this struct
> ?

...and this would cause core xproto to depend on a library that not
everybody will want to build or install.

>> I don't see a really compelling reason not to also define it in the XML.
>> It just feels redundant.
>>
> I think it would be better to have xcb_ge_generic_event_t only in XML,
> so we could keep all protocol definitions in one place ( xcb-proto ).
> That will be important when we would like to generate server-side code,
> from those descriptions.

Normally I'd agree, but Generic Events are going to want their own
syntax eventually anyway. See Xinput2 (and other future extensions).
Generic Events are fundamentally a new datatype, and not really the
same thing as traditional events.

>> [1] Ugh. Feels like a namespace collision. But there was no way to know
>> that someone would come up with "Generic Events" years after this name
>> was chosen.
> Huh, I thought that xcb_generic_event_t is Generic Event ... :)

Exactly. :-)

Peter Harris