On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 01:18:20AM +0100, Thomas Winischhofer wrote: >Alex Deucher wrote: >> >> I like Option 1. but either is ok with me. Also, FWIW, a lot of the >> other mergedfb code could/should be moved into a general mergedfb lib. >> Stuff like pseudo-xinerama could be folded into the real xinerama >> extension. some of this work may already be done for the OSX port. > >AFAIK, the OSX port uses the same pseudo stuff that we use. > >> Also how would clone modes and head orientation be handled in this >> model? Perhaps a clone mode of each supportable res on each monitor >> would be automatically added? > >At what place in the list? Confusing the user is the least we want, >especially with that already quite complicated concept of mergedfb.
I think the goal here is provide a simpler and more regular method of handling this stuff, but with a basis that is flexible enough to handle expected needs without going through this again in the near future. Clone and zoom are all special cases of a more general monitor layout mechanism, which is really all about how you postion the multiple view ports into the single screen and how you handle mode switching. Allowing these things to be changed/configured on the fly makes it even more interesting, and will go some way to simplifying real-world configuration. Open question: does the newly (or nearly?) standardised Xinerama extension allow for the physical screen layout to be changed at runtime? It needs to for a least this "pseudo Xinerama" case. David _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
