On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 03:03:23PM +0300, Tiago Vignatti wrote: > But the modularization and conditionalization of code in Xorg is not > only about memory saving; I'd say memory saving is the part that I really > don't care here. > > *Code organization is the key* > > Why Kristian started Wayland? Cause Xorg is a huge pile of ancient code tied > with a immutable protocol. We hear this all the time from people. If we had > minimal server, as I'm targeting, I doubt Kristian would start his project. > > The ideal X server implementation is not so tough to imagine: a minimal core > where you can load several modules, drivers, extensions - this all being > static or dynamic doesn't matter. X would literally fit in any kind of device. > Embedded, distro and all the rest of the world would live nicely and very > happy with this implementation. > > If I want to analyse the code to suppress the cursor, for instance, I have to > understand some old odd extensions, RAMDAC code from 80's and possibly all the > pointer logic happening in dix. In the worst case the protocol will not let me > to do so. It's damn hard. The code is huge. The code is messy. Everyone is > aware about it. On the other hand, modularization of Xorg, having a minimal > Xorg, means clean code, easy to expand and play with.
messy code isn't fixed by disabling it. it's fixed by _fixing_ it. > IMHO, Keith, as the RM and the one that ultimately says which code goes > upstream, should be very clear about this sort of issue. I can't discuss > future development of X without understand his thoughts. (Sometimes I feel > that our development process is living in Baazar model without someone > dictating it, which doesn't make sense. No offences please, Keith!). Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
