On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Jesse Allen <the3dfxd...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Massimo Del Fedele <m...@veneto.com> wrote: >> 2) when winedib.drv is working good enough, wanted to "detach" it from >> winex11.drv, so make another "driver" comprising DDB parts of wineX11 >> and all optimizations needed. > > > This detaching thing is a little worrying. How will winex11 be called > after detaching? Through winedib or gdi again? The first would not > change functionality at all. The second is like the two driver > method. It sounds like we ought to stick to the two separate drivers > as a basis in development so we don't end up with something that can't > be unglued easily. > > >
We shouldn't introduce a temporary driver. I can't speak for Alexandre but I think he would prefer to let winex11.drv not directly touch DIBs and move it to gdi32 and I guess in a second step also move the conversion code over to gdi32 and work with some capability flags which the display driver uses to tell whether it can render at a certain depth or not. Depending on that gdi32 should execute the current conversion code. In a next step the DIB engine can be added. Roderick
