From: Matthias H. <ma...@ms...> - 2008-01-22 18:11:11
|
On Jan 22, 08 19:05:18 +0100, Matthias Ringwald wrote: > hm. I guess I didn't explain this properly. What I meant is, that > on Linux, the XINE_VISUAL_TYPE_XCB is used instead of the > "traditional" XINE_VISUAL_TYPE_X11. > The XINE_VISUAL_TYPE_X11 causes unnecessary locking issues > when used together with the java x11 AWT implementation. > (Mainly, java does only only use an internal mutex and does not > call XLockDisplay). I know. We had quite some issues with that. But workarounds exist. > As far as I understand, for both visual types XINE_VISUAL_TYPE_XCB > and XINE_VISUAL_TYPE_X11 an appropriate vo_driver which will be chosen by > xine, > and this will be vo_out_xv or vo_out_xshm for X11 and vo_out_xcbxv or > vo_out_xcbshm > for the XCB visual. The XCB visual 'just' uses the xcb-library instead of > xlib to > communicate with the X server. (All my XBC knowledge came from Christoph > here.. :) Yes, but e.g. opengl won't be possible with this scheme :-] And there are quite a number of systems out there that don't have a libxcb.so yet, so they don't neither vo_out_xcb*. > Thanks a lot, too. > Matthias Thanks Matthias (Just to make the confusion complete ;) -- Matthias Hopf <mh...@su...> __ __ __ Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ ma...@ms... Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ R & D www.mshopf.de |