Xi and XCB
jamey at minilop.net
Sun Dec 10 14:17:50 PST 2006
Can I invite you to continue this discussion on the XCB list, Daniel?
Some people who would be interested don't read the xorg list.
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 01:59:09PM +0200, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 01:24:38AM -0800, Jamey Sharp wrote:
> > We'd be very happy to receive a description of XInputExtension for
> > inclusion in xcb-proto; and if someone has a need for it, several
> > people on the XCB list have experience writing these descriptions
> > now and might take on the work.
> Hm. (Eep, no XKB either?) I might be able to do that, if that's all
> it takes.
> I just remember seeing somewhere that someone had claimed Xi was the
> last extension to get ported over because of some issues in its
> protocol design.
I think you're thinking of XKB. XKB's protocol is a pain. I restarted
some discussions recently on how to deal with it -- see the xcb list
archives -- but it seems folks weren't very interested.
The Xi protocol actually looks quite sane. This may just be a sign that
I've been traumatised by reading the XKB spec, but I think Xi is
straightforward. I guess nobody got around to looking at it before.
And remember, any time XCB's description language turns out not to be
expressive enough to describe real protocol, we're perfectly happy to
change the tags to be easier to use: just let us know how we can help.
> > Contributions welcome. :-)
> Unfortunately I'm still chasing the input beast in a couple of
> directions for 7.3, as well as a few other pending patches that need
> finishing up and pushing. If I keep sorting module releases out at
> this rate, too ...
If you feel native-XCB support for Xi is urgent but you can't get to it,
let us know why you want it soon; somebody will probably pick it up.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the xorg