On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 15:17 +0100, Sven Panne wrote:
[ moved to libraries list ]
Am Montag, 5. Februar 2007 00:15 schrieb Duncan Coutts:
[...] Perhaps these days binding xcb might be the way to go for low level X11 stuff.
I had a look and XCB, and it looks quite promising as a "better Xlib". What is not so clear to me is:
* X.Org seems to use it as a basis for their Xlib implementation. Is this correct?
Yes. The X.org Xlib uses XCB underneath. Part of the reason for that is so that apps can start to migrate to XCB while still using some Xlib functions.
* What about XFree86?
* What about X11 implementations on *BSD, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, etc.?
* Is XCB 100% feature-complete compared to Xlib?
No and that's rather the point. Xlib contains lots of stuff that very few apps use. XCB is more minimal.
I guess that XCB is not widespread enough yet to drop the X11 package now, but I'd like to hear what others think. OTOH, a Haskell binding for XCB can probably be generated automatically to a large degree via XSLT, if I understand things correctly, which would be a big plus.
How about putting the Xlib binding into maintenance mode and moving the focus to XCB bindings. Duncan