[openbeos] Re: Mesa - OpenGL

>> The biggest issue is drivers.
>
>Of course, that's why I am suggesting using the existing drivers for 
>Mesa 3d.

Yes, but they are not Be-like, at all.

>"Among the design goals for the DRI were: 
>...
>Support of a variety of different graphics hardware designs
>...
>Support of multiple, simultaneous rendering by many client programs
>...
>Portability to allow implementations on other operating systems and 
>system architectures
>..."
>
>Doesn't sound that bad.

If they listed the down sides, who would be interested? :-)

>Having DRI (or something very similar) in the app=5Fserver would ease the 
>porting issues - at least you could port drivers, you wouldn't have to 
>write them from the start.

Using X as a graphics display tool would put us in the same place.
Or GDI, for that matter. :-)
The fact is, we chose the Be way. DRI is not similar enough, from what I see, 
to contribute. One thing that we *have*, briefly, in passing, mentioned, is that
a whole app_server using hw opengl would be very cool. BUT, it would require
working hw opengl. And since the engineers at Be labored under this heavy burden
for more than a year (and everything that I have heard about Jason Sams was
extremely positive), I doubt that we will manage that anytime in the near 
future.
Not that it is off of the radar scope. It would make a hundred other features 
possible
and easier - transparency, non-rectangular windows, games, etc. But there are a 
few problems - 1) it is hard and 2) no one with good 3d knowledge and hw 
experience
wants to volunteer. If I had 50 people pounding down my (email) door who had
the qualifications, I might say "hey, why not?" When that happens, we shall 
see. :-)
In the mean time, we are going forward with what we do know how to do, and what
is really required to match what Be did. :-)


>And Mesa is a good OpenGL implementation - "incorporating" it could 
>save some developer lives.

Mesa != DRI. Mesa, as an external to app_server library, is a good thing.

>> It seems to me to be an idea that would make OBOS far from Be-like.
>> In any case, the compact answer would *resoundingly* be, not in R1.
>
>;-)
>
>Adios...
>   Axel.
>
>
>
>

Other related posts: