[RFC] Refactoring of dix/dixutils.c

[Fernando Carrijo]

Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at who-t.net> wrote:

> Fernando Carrijo wrote:
> > 
> > Would you guys mind if I chose /dix/core and /dix as the new homes for files
> > related to the core protocol and the protocol support routines, respectively?
> > Whenever possible, I prefer to avoid the names "utils" or "misc" for I believe
> > they emphasize the less important side of the coin.
> 
> I'd say use proto/ for the core protocol handling and put pure protocol util
> functions into /proto/protoutils.c. The dix util function can then stay in
> dix/dixutils.c. all the other protocol stuff is part of the extension
> directories anyway.

I'm getting lost! Names proliferate too fast here! :)

> You'll probably have some fun untangling the various ProcRequestName from
> the dix source files (static files, file-specific defines, etc.). And tbh.
> I'm not totally convinced that this is worthwile. What's the goal you're
> trying to achieve? Just a cleanup? If so, could that be achived by simply
> grouping the ProcRequestName in the respective files?
> Or are you working towards that elusive goal of server-side xcb? :)

No, I didn't plan nothing that big. On the contrary: after reading dixutils.c,
I simply envisioned the possibility of relocating some functions which sounded
cohesive enough to deserve their own files. If that represents the first step
in the direction of more daring changes, God only knows!