On 24 Oct 2000, at 1:13, the Illustrious Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> Hello Earnie,
> Earnie Boyd wrote on Tuesday, October 24, 2000:
> EB> Opinions of whether we should include them in the w32api
> package or create a EB> separate package?
Since the DirectX API really isn't part of the Win32api, my
opinion is that we should not, at least not initially.
If there are a lot of requests for Dx functionality, then there
might well be a reason to re-evaluate such a policy.
In the meantime, I have a number of concerns re: Dx support
If we attempt to maintain it, we will be dealing with a lot of
proprietary issues and questions about DirectX and an assumption
will be made that we are responsible for maintaining ongoing
updates for DirectX under Mingw.
Fact is, it is fairly easy to build Dx apps given the current
availability of the Dx stuff (6.1 was last one I remember being
available for Gnu development) AT (After Tweaking).
However, this will only be true for as long as MS continues to
supply downward compatibility to a given Dx release version.
Last I checked, that compatibility extended to Dx3 given the
latest version of the Dx API.
MS is no longer supporting NT4 in terms of updates/service
packs outside of security patches, etc. This would indicate
that Dx3 support may disappear entirely from the downward
compatibility list of the Dx API.
Here is where things tend to get a bit "hairy", in that not all
Win32api based systems can use all other win32api calls, nor can
they use all MS provided APIs. This is especially true when
attempting to port Dx applications from Win9x to NT4 (been
there, done that).
Of course, MSVS already knows (via macros and some other arcane
and undocumented references) what Dx headers to use.
Mingw, on the other hand, does not. What that means to me is
that if we choose to support Dx, then we would also have to
create and maintain the interface controls between WinNT4 and
I won't even get into the amount of overhead required to handle
the interface controls required for such things, let alone the
extra umpteen-thousand Dx api calls that are added every year
and then re-released as the latest version of DirectX.
The biggest concern I have appears when I ask the question "Why
hasn't the Dx api been maintained beyond the Gnu Dx6.1 port to
I think the answer to this question is twofold: the api
changes pretty fast (new release, on the average of once every
year or so) and rumor has it that the later version of Dx (8?)
tends to depend more on MFC than did Dx7.
Of lesser concern, Dx header maintenance.
> Did someone contribute them?
Actually, no. The Dx stuff that currently exists is, for the
most part, based on the Gnu release of Dx6. Historically, if
you wanted DirectX, then you would go download the Gnu port and
use that. Fortunately or unfortunately, the NT4 OS security
architecture limits Dx API functionality to version 3. Dx6
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.