From: Marcus Sundberg <mackan@stacken.kth.se>
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 21:04:03 +0200

Re: debugging libggi...

Andrew Apted wrote:
> 
> Marcus writes:
> >  > Marcus, what are these for ?
> >
> >  If we want extensions to be able to handle DirectBuffers the
> >  target needs to know which buffers that belongs to it.
> >  The idea is that extensions that mess with the DB lists update
> >  these entries accordingly, so the target can now which buffers
> >  to free.
> 
> OK, but it doesn't sound very scalable.  What if two extensions
> (assuming that's possible simultaneously) both have DBs, do we add
> extra fields to ggi_db_list ??  I'd prefer a tag-based approach (i.e.
> buffer A belongs to library B).

Yes, I've though about that too. Internal tags should not be
visible to applications though. How about just adding an
int *idtag;
entry to the ggi_db_list (idtag will be an array with each
entry corresponding to an entry in bufs) ?

> Also, I thought whether extensions added directbuffers to the same list
> (and same function calls) or whether they used their own list/function
> calls was still an open question.  Did I miss something ?

I added this before we even talked about extensions having their
own lists, so yes it's still open.
The extensions that would use the same list as targets, would be
extensions providing buffers without any need to request them
manually. All others should use their own functions.

//Marcus
-- 
-------------------------------+------------------------------------
        Marcus Sundberg        | http://www.stacken.kth.se/~mackan/
 Royal Institute of Technology |       Phone: +46 707 295404
       Stockholm, Sweden       |   E-Mail: mackan@stacken.kth.se