On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:57:44AM -0600, D. Hageman wrote: | This illustrates one of the bad points of using environment variables. | Will we have to add environment variables every time a new app is pushed | out the door? Bad approach.
In general, if a bug affects every app, then the driver needs to be fixed. Ian's scenario (and my reply) were about the case in which you want to change driver behavior for one app without affecting others. | > The approach I want to avoid is defining a bunch of general low-level | > switches ... | > ... This is not the | > way to provide effective controls to the end user, it's not the way to | > keep application behavior consistent from run to run on the same system, | > and it doesn't even help make the driver developers' lives easier. | | Ah, but it *must* be defined as a bunch of low level switches to make | developers lives easier. If preferences are handled at the application level, then in most cases the driver developers don't have to do anything. That's as easy as you can get. :-) What I had in mind was that supporting a bunch of low-level switches involves lots of conditional code deep in the drivers. | I think the thing that will make users lives easier is a tool that can | modify the per-app configuration. ... Folks can work on this if they want, obviously. But it has less payoff than work on other projects, because library-level controls aren't as effective as controls at the application level, and because programmability in current and future graphics hardware is reducing the number of low-level fixed-function switches that can be exposed. Allen ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Visual Studio.NET comprehensive development tool, built to increase your productivity. Try a free online hosted session at: http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?micr0003en _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
