[RFC] Refactoring of dix/dixutils.c

[Daniel Stone]

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:58:48PM -0300, Fernando Carrijo wrote:
> Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at who-t.net> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I'm getting lost! Names proliferate too fast here! :)

Sounds sensible to me.

> > 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? :)
> 
> No, I didn't plan nothing that big. On the contrary: after reading dixutils.c,
> I simply envisioned the possibility of relocating some functions which sounded
> cohesive enough to deserve their own files. If that represents the first step
> in the direction of more daring changes, God only knows!

I think the cleanup is a worthwhile goal in and of itself, if it helps
us separate common utility functions we need to reuse, from the
drudgework of (de)marshalling.  Especially if it helps us get even a
little bit closer to server-side XCB.

Cheers,
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20100730/e360dbb4/attachment-0001.pgp>