[Xorg] Xinerama backward compatibility issues
Kaleb S. KEITHLEY
kaleb at shiman.com
Thu Feb 19 12:05:05 PST 2004
Egbert Eich wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith writes:
> > Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
> > > That's correct, no attempt has been made -- so far -- to preserve BC at
> > > the wire protocol level. (Nobody has made the case that it needs to be,
> > > either. Not yet anyway.)
> > 5 years of deploying software using the old interfaces and protocols means
> > we'd break a lot of interoperability if backwards compatibility wasn't there.
> > Deprecating them is good, removing them is not.
I'll accept that as making the case that it ought to be.
> That would apply to the removal of the panoramiX requests from
> the wire protocol.
> I don't see the benefit of the rest of the changes.
> The lib API is more standard conform as the XineramaGetData() call
> now returns a status instead of a pointer to a list. The list is
> returned in one of its arguments.
> The XineramaActive() call just got a Window ID added - which I fail
> to understand.
Probably a good question for the xorg_arch list where, presumable, some
of the people who spec'd the new protocol can anser the question.
More information about the xorg