Jan de Mooij jandemooij@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Chris Howe mrmessiah@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/24 Massimo Del Fedele max@veneto.com
Sorry to sound like a stuck record but the Wine website still lists "write a DIB engine" as a requirement, and every time someone does, the patches dissapear down a hole because they're "not right". Someone document what "would be right", or take "write a DIB engine" off the list. I'd love to have a go at documenting it myself, but I don't have the time to reverse engineer it from a few years' worth of rejected solutions.
Agreed. I would be willing to invest some time this summer in a DIB engine but it's impossible because of this. A wiki page describing the "right design" and what is needed in which component would be a great start. Maybe a goal for next WineConf?
Writing a DIB engine is not a fill-in-the-blanks exercise. A large part of the task is precisely to come up with a good design, validate it with a prototype, and then convince people (especially Huw and myself) that your design is good, that you know what you are doing, that you have anticipated the common objections and have good answers for them, that you are willing to make requested changes, that you have good test cases, etc. Showing that it more or less works on a couple of apps, or that it passes the (very few) existing gdi32 tests, is of course necessary, but by no means enough. If you want to tackle this, it will also help to have a good track record in getting simpler patches in first.
Once all of this is done and the proper design is in place in the tree, then there might be a number of fill-in-the-blanks tasks to implement the less common graphics calls that would probably be stubbed out in the first version. But we are nowhere near that point yet.