Hi, On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:58:03PM +0200, Simon Thum wrote: > On 04/20/2011 10:21 AM, Daniel Stone wrote: > > I'd also found and written 01/20 independently (it's sitting in another > > branch) while having a similar 'wtf is all this?' excursion through the > > pointer code, and had wondered how it worked! > > Well, beyond a certain point there's simply no way I can make it better > understandable for anyone but me in my current (at the time) mindset. > Yes, it's complicated, but it's on par with the problem. And if I had > gotten requests to clarify things in time, that might have been avoidable. > > After all, the development process and review density surely improved. > Today, some of peter's changes might have surfaced before even hitting > master. But the real point is that if the issue is complex, the code > will be too or it's too simple, meaning plain wrong. > > I predict that X input will have to go some way towards more complexity > to deliver the features one might naturally expect from a window system. > There simply isn't much to argue about touchscreens bound to their > output screen. X knows both. It's natural, it just requires some amount > of in-server complexity - not some helper program floating around and > fighting against other helper programs trying to achieve something else, > piling up complexity on the system boundaries. > > What can be argued about is reducible complexity, which means the scheme > code here in accel. But this is the most straightforward part if you > haven't been wading through mickeys before. > > We can remove some of the settings and the scheme code without impairing > functionality. We can make it simpler and better documented. > > I'm happy to review patches.
Fair enough. Thanks. :) Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
