Modules created and initial files checked in

[Adam Jackson]

On Monday 09 May 2005 12:19, Kevin E Martin wrote:
> On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 06:10:23PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> This re-raises the issue that I raised in an earlier thread regarding
> library headers being intertwined with protocol headers.  Ideally the
> protocol and library interface headers would be separable, but right now
> they are not.  Making all headers separable (and moving the lib headers
> to the lib module) could cause problems for ISVs who include the proto
> header instead of the lib header.  I would like to see this fixed, but I
> don't know if this is the appropriate time.  What do others think?

We haven't broken source compatibility with X11R1 yet; I don't know that we 
should start.  I think moving forward we can solve this simultaneously with 
rolling out XCB, but I'm not convinced that attempting to sanitize the Xlib 
headers is a good idea.  

> > One comment: can we *please* not call the MIT-SCREEN-SAVER protocol
> > module, 'SS'?
>
> Sure.  What would you suggest as an alternative, ScrnSaver?

MitScreenSaver would be better, on the off chance that someone wants to 
implement SGI-SCREEN-SAVER.

- 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-modular/attachments/20050509/6143a2b5/attachment.pgp