[Xcb] About next release of xcb/util

[Julien Danjou]

Arnaud Fontaine <arnaud at andesi.org> writes:
> 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 not sure splitting libs using the code size as a criteria is a good idea.

> 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.

There's little chance someone will use either ewmh or icccm, in 99% of
the case we're rather sure both will be used, so building 2 .so seems lame.

I'd be also in favour to incorporate them into xcb/util, but well, I
guess I can say why not having xcb/wm.

> - 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.

Again, I don't think it's worth thinking with "size". 99% of X
applications will need to do some input stuff so will load this. Let's
put it inside xcb/util too.

-- 
Julien Danjou
// ᐰ <julien at danjou.info>   http://julien.danjou.info
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xcb/attachments/20100324/587b6b98/attachment.pgp>