Handling of driver protocol extensions in cvs

[Adam Jackson]

On Monday 30 January 2006 17:29, Philip Langdale wrote:
> Adam Jackson wrote:
> > There is no preferred mechanism atm.  Whatever makes your life easiest, I
> > suppose, though in the long term I would like as few driver-specific
> > extensions as possible.
>
> Agreed, a proliferation of driver extensions isn't in anyone's interest.
>
> Aivils Stoss posted a description of a generic extension a few days ago,
> which might serve as a mechanism to standardise the driver extensions -
> and even a simple key-value get-set extension where each driver could
> publish keys would probably go a long way.

While the latter idea sounds fine, Aivils' proposal to me sounded like 
"protocols are hard and I don't want to define my API so let's just not worry 
about it", which is completely not the way to go.

- ajax
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20060130/e787af3e/attachment.pgp>