> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
>
> > > > However I don't think we should put DirectX related X11 stuff
> > > > directly in x11drv it bloats it to much. Most applications don't
> > > > use DirectX so it shouldn't need to load it in memory or even
> > > > require its presence on the harddisk.
> > >
> > > Unused parts of binaries aren't loaded into memory. Only when
> > > referenced
> > > are they paged in from disk.
> >
> > I know, that why I added "or even require its presence on
> the harddisk".
> > Think embedded system that is low on diskspace.
>
> Not really... even Windows CE supports DirectX.
It supports DirectX yes, but not every user of WineCE (or whatever)
will use applications requiring it so it unnessary for them
to have support for it in memory (or rather permanent storage).
Having everything separated in dlls will enable to pick and choose
what they want without having to recompile everything.
> And if you
> really have an
> embedded device that can run a complete X server, and even
> one that has
> enough support for XVidMode, DGA, and GLX to have these parts compiled
> into x11drv to boot, then I pretty much doubt that the few
> hundred bytes
> the driver stuff we need may add to x11drv is going to matter...
I didn't say it was a large problem just an additional problem.
> I suspect an embedded system low on diskspace would most likely run a
> fbdrv, not x11drv...
Probably.
> > > of the rest
> > > (using standard system-independent OpenGL calls). Lots of
> > > portability to
> > > be gained here... without adding too much code to x11drv.
> > > (Most 3D work
> > > would then still be local to ddraw, since it's the GL part
> > > that's hard,
> > > not the GLX part.)
> >
> > Agreed (in part). But it might not require it to be aware of
> > existance of a Windows-like OpenGL just GLX. Same as in
> > the other cases.
>
> Windows-like? Never said anything about that...
True, you didn't.
I just meantioned that there is a difference just in case.
