[Xcb] About next release of xcb/util

[Arnaud Fontaine]

>>>>> Julien Danjou <julien at danjou.info> writes:

Hi,

    >> Maybe  the wm-side icccm and  ewmh bits should be  split from the
    >> client-side bits and made into their own library?

    > Why? Don't see the point.

I think  it should be split  because icccm and  ewmh are quite a  lot of
code compared to the rest. Moreover, someone would certainly use xcb-aux
without needing all the code defined in icccm and ewmh.

    > I'm sorry,  but I'm getting a bit lost and  not sure we're talking
    > about the same things.  xcb-util repository is already building 10
    > shared library (.so files).

I'm getting a bit lost too.

    > What I propose:
    > * Repository: xcb/util, building:
    >   - xcb-util.so (merging:
    >                  - xcb-atom.so
    >                  - xcb-aux.so
    >                  - xcb-icccm.so
    >                  - xcb-ewmh.so
    >                  - xcb-keysyms.so
    >                  - Some part of the following, but most of the code
    >                    should be removed because it's craps:
    >                    - xcb-event.so
    >                    - xcb-reply.so
    >                    - xcb-property.so

I  think the  current code  should be  split up  according its  size and
features. So, I would rather do something like that:

- xcb/util (merging: xcb-{aux, event, reply, property, atom})

As stated before, all these libraries are quite small ATM so maybe there
is no point at splitting them.

- xcb/wm (merging: xcb-{ewmh, icccm})

I think  these libraries should either  be in the same  repository or in
separate ones for the reasons I gave above.

- xcb/keysyms (merging: xcb-keysyms)

This library  is not really big  ATM but it will  be as soon  as we will
have ported the keyboard helpers from the Xlib.

    > * Repository: xcb/image, building:
    >   - xcb-image.so
    > * Repository: xcb/renderutil, building:
    >   - xcb-renderutil.so

Fine by me.

Arnaud