D3DX

["Luis C. Busquets Pérez"]

Dear all and in particular Alexander and Louis,

I have seen that the work d3dx8 has began and that a number of functions 
have been added to the spec. I know this is a recurring subject but I 
think something should be done now.

As you know, the fowllowing files
d3dx8.dll
d3dx9_24.dll
d3dx9_25.dll
d3dx9_26.dll
d3dx9_27.dll
d3dx9_28.dll
d3dx9_29.dll
d3dx9_30.dll
d3dx9_31.dll
d3dx9_32.dll
d3dx9_33.dll
d3dx9_34.dll
d3dx9_35.dll
Share a large number of functions. Actually, 142 of the 153 the 
functions you have added to d3dx8.spec are repeated in all those dlls.
I think that a merge development should be done. That is to develop just 
one dlls/d3dx/d3dx.spec together with the different dlls/d3dx/xx.c files 
implementing those functions with the 349 functions that are used in all 
those d3d extensions. Then, the spec files of each specific file 
referring to d3dx.
Are you opposed to such alternative?

Luis

[Stefan Dösinger]

Am Donnerstag, 4. Oktober 2007 18:57:20 schrieb Luis C. Busquets Pérez:
> Dear all and in particular Alexander and Louis,
> Share a large number of functions. Actually, 142 of the 153 the
> functions you have added to d3dx8.spec are repeated in all those dlls.
> I think that a merge development should be done. That is to develop just
> one dlls/d3dx/d3dx.spec together with the different dlls/d3dx/xx.c files
> implementing those functions with the 349 functions that are used in all
> those d3d extensions. Then, the spec files of each specific file
> referring to d3dx.
> Are you opposed to such alternative?

It sounds like a sane plan, but we have to take care about version 
differences. But I'd expect most of the functionality to be the same, and 
tiny differences can be fixed in the version-specific dll(d3dx8 vs d3dx9). 
This would be simmilar to WineD3D, ddraw, d3d8 and d3d9.