For what it's worth, although the idea of not starting with a<br>clean state has its advantages (not in the least being able<br>to support D3D10 software in a short time frame) I think <br>that the clean slate argument wins out for me overall.
<br><br>Yes, it's more work in the short term, but I can't help <br>thinking of a situation down the line where something <br>gets done with the D3D10 framework - some as yet <br>unknown extension or iteration to D3D11 or whatever -
<br>that took the library down a path that code based on <br>Wine's current implementation couldn't follow, <br>necessitating a restart from scratch later on anyway.<br><br>Worst case scenario, perhaps, but a painful one that's
<br>probably worth thinking about. It'd be a shame if it did <br>happen that way and D3D10 compatibility went backwards<br>while it got restarted, plus there'd be a load of D3D10 <br>cruft in the D3D9 library that would need to get culled...
<br><br>--<br>Chris<br>