making X server a COM object..

[Harold L Hunt II]

Not to be rude... but I don't think you have a firm grasp on the scope 
of what you are talking about.

Harold

Chan Kar Heng wrote:
> hmmm... i'd certainly avoid porting XFree86 to use win32 instead of cygwin...
> i have a feeling it'd be a *lot* of effort...
> 
> i'm thinking.. if it might work if all the .dll files and XWin.exe required were
> compiled to .o or .a files.. then using a COM object, statically link in all
> those .o or .a files... (it would be a pretty huge COM obj though, but it's
> a start at least?)...
> 
> 
> At 2003/04/01 07:58, you wrote:
> 
>>Harold,
>>
>>At 15:50 2003-03-31, you wrote:
>>
>>>KH,
>>>
>>>The scope is probably beyond the scope of this mailing list.
>>>
>>>I think you would be better off working first on a version of Cygwin/XFree86 that compiled without Cygwin... then, and only then, could you even begin to worry about wrapping XFree86 with a COM interface.
>>
>>Cygwin /XFree86 without Cygwin is Win32/XFree86, or some such, is it not?
>>
>>It always seemed to me that the target specifier ought to come after the main program name: XFree86/Cygwin, XFree86/Win32, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Harold
>>
>>Randall Schulz 
> 
> 
> 
>