Re: GTK-XCB is in progress

On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 13:21 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> It seems pretty clear that gtk-x11 has to continue to be installed - 
> gdkx.h is in the ABI.

Damn.  So it is.

> That means a path forward would have to make maintaining both XCB and 
> libX11 GDK targets a viable option, i.e. just cut-and-pasting the X11 
> backend and modifying it to be the XCB backend is not feasible. Instead, 
> for the next many years GTK+ would install a gtk-x11 and a gtk-xcb.
> The simplest path to have both seems to be to have an abstraction API 
> that could use libX11 or XCB on the backend. Doesn't XCB have a 
> libX11-like wrapper API? If so, why not make that the abstraction API?
> If not, why not write one that implements what gdk-x11 uses? So an XCB 
> backend shares virtually all code with the libX11 backend and the libX11 
> backend is pretty much unchanged.

There is work on porting libX11 to use XCB internally, which is probably
what you are thinking of.

>In the public XCB API (gdkxcb.h vs. gdkx.h) native XCB API could be 
>used, and gdk-xcb would not support gdkx.h or would support it only
>with footnotes and caveats. This would allow apps to migrate to a 
>libX11-API-free state by requiring the xcb backend and using gdkxcb.h 
>instead of gdkx.h.

This sounds good to me.  Would deprecating gtkx.h be considered when XCB
is sufficiently deployed?

Ross Burton                                 mail: ross burtonini com
                                          jabber: ross burtonini com
 PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]