making X server a COM object..

Chan Kar Heng
Wed Apr 2 20:30:00 GMT 2003

thank you for the courtesy.. :)
.. and i would likely (85%) agree with you that i do not have a
firm grasp on the scope... probably more.. probably less..
but if i had a firm grasp, i probably wouldn't need to ask around
the gurus here right? :)

what i do hope is to be able to get some pointers directly at
potential problems... and why it might be impossible to solve...
rather than spending the time to research each one of them
(cygwin, cygwin xfree, COM, etc) in detail to look for potential
if the issue might be a lengthy one... i suppose some urls or
general description of the issue would suffice.

some potential problems that i can foresee from what i picked up
so far:

- different and likely conflicting runtimes... atlcrt, msvcrt, cygwin1.
if i'm not mistaken, in this case, it's possible to have the cake
and still eat it... but it's very very tricky...
- threading...
- COM on cygwin (even COM on mingw is difficult enough.. and
one can't use C++ due to different name mangling technique).

do correct me in areas where i might be wrong...

havn't been following on cygwin xfree86... so don't know much
bout it...




>Not to be rude... but I don't think you have a firm grasp on the scope of what you are talking about.
>Chan Kar Heng wrote:
>>hmmm... i'd certainly avoid porting XFree86 to use win32 instead of cygwin...
>>i have a feeling it'd be a *lot* of effort...
>>i'm thinking.. if it might work if all the .dll files and XWin.exe required were
>>compiled to .o or .a files.. then using a COM object, statically link in all
>>those .o or .a files... (it would be a pretty huge COM obj though, but it's
>>a start at least?)...
>>At 2003/04/01 07:58, you wrote:
>>>At 15:50 2003-03-31, you wrote:
>>>>The scope is probably beyond the scope of this mailing list.
>>>>I think you would be better off working first on a version of Cygwin/XFree86 that compiled without Cygwin... then, and only then, could you even begin to worry about wrapping XFree86 with a COM interface.
>>>Cygwin /XFree86 without Cygwin is Win32/XFree86, or some such, is it not?
>>>It always seemed to me that the target specifier ought to come after the main program name: XFree86/Cygwin, XFree86/Win32, etc.
>>>Randall Schulz 

More information about the Cygwin-xfree mailing list