[RFC] Refactoring of dix/dixutils.c

[Peter Hutterer]

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:34:27PM -0300, Fernando Carrijo wrote:
> Vignatti Tiago wrote:
> 
> > Jamey Sharp wrote:
> > > 
> > > The proposed "lookup.c" is mostly about protocol implementation, though,
> > > and I'd be happy to see another patch after this series that reorganizes
> > > dix/ to highlight the protocol implementation bits. Perhaps a separate
> > > top-level proto/ tree?
> > 
> > exactly. Someway of highlighting protocol implementation only is all that I
> > tried to explain in my last email. A top-level proto/ with a proto/utils/
> > sounds nice for me.
> 
> 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.

> Someone else oppose?

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? :)
 
Cheers,
  Peter