[RFC] Refactoring of dix/dixutils.c

[Fernando Carrijo]

Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> Fernando Carrijo wrote:
> >
> > Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.

I probably didn't understand quite well the reason for what you guys mean by
server-side XCB. Google did't help too much either, although I wonder it might
be not far from avoiding the burden of maintaining bulky and error-prone code
by automatically generating server internal request dispatch stubs based on XML
descriptions of the protocol. Is it better documented somewhere?

Either way, I took notes of all people's opinions because I really plan to
further investigate these questions in the future, as soon as I finish some
other more immediate tasks. For the time being, I will deliver a patch series
based on this RFC, with minor stylistic modifications.