d3dx implementation senseless?

[tony.wasserka at freenet.de]

Hi,
I enjoyed the current wine development of the D3DX libraries and also tried to implement an interface.
However, while testing it I noticed that Wine seems to fully support everything when it has a native
d3dx9.dll (though it even was able to run one of my games without any dll...). So I was asking myself
if there's even a reason to implement anything other than the inlined functions of D3DX, when we only
lose performance and development time with it. Also, what would we do at functions like
D3DXCreateTextureFromFile which supports 9 file formats? Would we implement e.g. a BMP file
loader ourselves or would we use a 3rd party library for that? Are there any patents regarding the
DX specific file formats (.x/.dds)? Don't misunderstand me, I'd also like to help out at D3DX, but I
really think we'd be better off by removing everything of D3DX but the inlined stuff.
    Best regards,
        Tony Wasserka


(PS: if one argues that we need the implementation for WineLib, I _think_ it'd be enough to just
stub all functions so that the program compiles fine and then use the native dll again)