d3dx implementation senseless?

tony.wasserka at freenet.de tony.wasserka at freenet.de
Sun Jan 6 12:20:13 CST 2008

> Since everybody agrees that we need a built-in d3dx9, we could begin to implement it.
> In the last talk about it, no plan was found to implement it: does one create a wined3dx or implement on the top of the last d3dx9
> dll?
> So, I think that a definitive answer should be given very quickly.
> David

As far as I read, we decided to create the dlls/d3dx9_** directories, use the latest one for all the code
and forward all calls from older dlls to this one. However, I don't think that it is a problem if a dll contains
more functions than the native dll, so we could also just use 12 (sth. around that) copies of the same dll.

And about starting development: I have already began to implement the D3DXRenderToSurface interface,
but I'm new to COM programming so the progress is quite slow, so I'd recommend someone other to do the
base of the dll. A suggestion I'd like to do is a message that Wine should print out when a program wants to
use the d3dx9 dll, sth. like:
        MESSAGE("The application you want to run makes use of the D3DX9 library!n");
        MESSAGE("tIts implementation under Wine is very young and far away from complete.n");
        MESSAGE("tYou may be better off using a native d3dx9_24.dll file.n");

More information about the wine-devel mailing list