Re: SetPixelCacheMethods() vs. SyncPixelCache() vs. SyncCacheNexus() vs. SyncCacheView()

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Wolfgang Spraul wrote:
>
> my point was that since the nexus cache functions are officially exported
> (e.g. GetCacheNexus()), the higher functions that use the function pointers
> are meaningless.

The existing "exports" are for Visual C++ Windows DLLs.  They may not
be well thought out.  For Unix and some other environments, all of the
non-static functions are available by default.

> If I would use the function pointer extensions mechanism, codes that call
> GetCacheNexus() would crash.
> The architecture is just not very clean in this area.
> I think I will assume that cache_view.c, and all function pointer codes are
> "dead-end", and instead I will use and extend the nexus functions directly.

Here in the USA we have the saying "Go with the flow".  This
philosophy presumes that extending what already works can be expected
to encounter the least unexpected problems.

> Many thanks for your answer,

Sorry it was not a better one. :-(

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
[email protected]
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software.
Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering
advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms.
Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html