Re: [AD] 4.3 graphic drivers

[Peter Wang <tjaden@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2005-11-10, Elias Pschernig <elias@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Bob's idea clearly is the most robust - even if the driver was compiled
> against another version of Allegro, it would still work (since we build
> the vtable at runtime out of name strings and versions.. so Allegro
> always has complete knowledge).

Strings.. ugh.  And maintaining all the compatibility.. double ugh.

> Evert's way allows binary compatibility, as long as prototypes don't
> change, and no crucial new entries are added.
> 
> With Peter's way, the driver needs to be compiled against the new
> Allegro version if the vtable entries change. It's not very different
> from the current system in how it works, but cleaner than the completely
> static vtables we have in 4.2.

Plus my one is the only one that preserves type safety.

I think the static vtables are cleanest.  The only reason any of our
three suggestion make any sense at all is the assumption that NULL is a
decent default for vtable methods.

Peter