|
From: Scott L. <sl...@cs...> - 2002-04-21 04:28:27
|
There are other ways to test this without exposing a dual interface though. For instance, you could expose a function that sets debugging flags that disallow the use of certain features of the X server. Seems bad to make the client decide which one they want when we can easily determine it for them (perhaps on the scheme side, perhaps on the C side). - Scott > To test it, for one. :-) > > Greg > > Scott Lenser <sl...@cs...> writes: > > > > Scott Lenser <sl...@cs...> writes: > > > > > > > Ah, I see. I didn't realize one was more robust than the other. I didn't > > > > actually look to see how they were implemented much. Couldn't this > > > > be folded into the move-pointer primitive so that you always get the > > > > best one that your version of X supports? In any case, the function > > > > to move the virtual viewports is identical between the two versions. > > > > > > It's possible, but sometimes you specifically want one or the other, so > > > the "smart" one would have to be another layer of abstraction. The > > > stuff that's truly duplicated definitely should be factored out into > > > something separate. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Greg > > > > > > > When would you want the non-xtest one if it the xtest one is available? > > > > - Scott |