[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 mailing list