On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 09:34:07PM -0800, Alan Irwin wrote: > On 2010-01-03 21:55-0500 Hazen Babcock wrote: > > > > > How important are the device numbers? I'm hoping to add a "pure" windows > > cairo driver, wincairo, but it appears that the logical device number > > has been taken by the Qt drivers. > > > > I'd like: > > "wincairo:Cairo Microscoft Windows Driver:0:cairo:66:wincairo\n" > > > > But Qt has: > > "bmpqt:Qt Windows bitmap driver:0:qt:66:bmpqt\n" > > > > Do I have to bump all the Qt device driver numbers up by one? > > I believe at minimum those numbers have to be unique. However, although not > essential it is really nice for human understanding to make sure those > numbers are contiguous for a given device driver. Thus, I would suggest you > go ahead and bump (I would suggest by three to give plenty of room for > future cairo device expansion) the Qt device numbers. > > And in the future when somebody implements the next device driver let's > remember to start its device numbers at least three above the transformed qt > device number range since the number of qt devices is bound to expand over > the years as well.
This might upset users who are used to selecting a device by number and are hard-wired into using the current codes. It's unlikely, but you never know. We ought to include a note somewhere that the numbers are _not_ guaranteed to stay the same. Device names (an acceptable alternative for users) should be immutable. Andrew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Plplot-devel mailing list Plplot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plplot-devel
