[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       freedesktop-xorg
Subject:    Re: Xgl/Xegl future?
From:       Matthias Hopf <mhopf () suse ! de>
Date:       2005-08-22 18:05:18
Message-ID: 20050822180518.GM8309 () suse ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

On Aug 22, 05 10:45:03 -0700, Allen Akin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 10:38:56AM +0200, Lars Knoll wrote:
> | On Monday 22 August 2005 03:08, Owen Taylor wrote:
> | > I can't speak for other major toolkits, but there is no current plan
> | > to do this for GTK+...
> | ...
> | And speaking for Qt I can only agree. You can't make all your 2d apps GL 
> | based, and we currently don't have any plans to do so. 
> 
> Just for completeness, I'll mention once again that there *are*
> arguments for doing just that.
> 
> Huge amounts of effort are invested in putting transistors on silicon to
> support OpenGL and D3D.  By failing to take full advantage of that
> investment, you leave both performance and functionality on the table.
> In particular, choosing a fixed-function API when the underlying API is
> programmable imposes a major restriction on present and future
> applications.

You are perfectly right. But I don't think that OpenGL should be used
for that. In this case we should take a closer look at M$'s avalon, a
scene graph description is much more what we would like to have here.
In this case we wouldn't have to transmit a lot data if e.g. only
positions change or something is highlighted.

Traversing this graph will be actually one of the features future
graphics hardware will have. So it's good if the Xserver knows about it.

I wanted to take a closer look, but I've been pretty busy lately.

Just my two cents

Matthias

-- 
Matthias Hopf <mhopf@suse.de>       __        __   __
Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg    (_   | |  (_   |__         mat@mshopf.de
Phone +49-911-74053-715            __)  |_|  __)  |__  labs   www.mshopf.de

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]