Re: The future of cairo's X11 backends
Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.cairo |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:36:08AM +0200, Uli Schlachter wrote: > On 29.09.2013 14:02, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> My plan would be to make cairo-xlib use xcb and XGetXCBConnection() for > >> everything, dump cairo-xcb and re-implement the cairo-xcb API on top of the code > >> that is left. This can easily be done incrementally. Basically it is "dump > >> cairo-xcb and turn cairo-xlib into a new cairo-xcb". I guess this means that the > >> now-common source files and functions need to be renamed to cairo-x11-*.c and > >> cairo_x11_*. :-) > > > > That seems reasonable, but realistically what advantages does doing the > > x11-to-xcb conversion in cairo-xlib give that doing it in libX11 itself > > misses? I suppose marrying the cairo-device and the Display lock would > > be improved. We would have to reinvent the XCloseDisplay hooks. > > I am not sure I understand. Do you mean "xlib already talks to xcb for us, why > would we want to talk to xcb directly"? Yes, I wondering what the merits are of moving that translation one library higher. > The reason for that would be: cairo-xcb exists and (hopefully) doesn't go away. > Thus cairo has to be able to work with just an xcb_connection_t* instead of a > Display*. It does so already, but this was done via copying the backend which > seems wasteful. Ok, that seems a reasonable argument: We can support native xcb and native xlib applications using cairo-xcb, but we cannot support native xcb applications using cairo-xlib. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- cairo mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cairographics.org/mailman/listinfo/cairo