Proposed libX11 ABI break

[Daniel Stone]

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 03:22:58PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> So, to sum up, the two approaches I could come up with can be simplified as:
> 
> * ABI break
>   + cost to clients low
>   - ABI break
> 
> * API replacement
>   + no ABI break
>   - cost to clients high
> 
> I'd prefer the former, especially in the light of the limited number of
> current users.
> 
> Comments?

As much as libX11 is firmly in 'can't ever break it' territory, I think
this is enough of a special case that the ABI break is worthwhile: that
approach makes complete sense.  The other option is to have static
storage that is only good until the next XNextEvent() call, with the
option of calling XGECopyEvent() or so, at which point the onus is on
you to free it.  But I think I prefer your approach.

Cheers,
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20090626/20249818/attachment.pgp