* Peter Strempel wrote on Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 22:55 +0100: > Steffen Dettmer wrote: > > Just as a probably stupid idea: Maybe in upcoming versions the 3D > > is a kind of "plugin" for gGo. >=20 > There is no real good 3D engine for Java.=20 Would get slow I think. That's why JNI or a second application came in my mind. > abandoned. Eventually, Sun and SGI announced the development of > OpenGL integration into Java few months ago, but that might > will take until end of 2004 or 2005 to be available. Interesting information. Thank you. > > some "external drawing engine", e.g. some SDL application > > which is a standalone server offering some TCP commands? >=20 > Ugly, ugly. :) Ugly? mmm... I would see it as a clean client-server application in the meaning of modern component based designs. > Communication with shared memory would be possible and > reasonable fast, but such is only available on Unix. On linux, local TCP communication is also fast and offers a high bandwidth. I would not expect any human-detecatable delay. > I see not much benefit of an external board window application, > there is a lot of communication going on between the board and > the core, so it should be IMO in the same process else things > will be very complex. I would expect the problems when trying to get the rendering at the correct place of the screen. however. > If one wants 3D, why not simply use glGo? Ohh! Didn't you annouced that development of gGo is discontinued and superseeded by glGo? > After all glGo isn't anything else than gGo-in-C++ (well, at > least it will be when it's done). The huge advantage of gGo and > Java is its portability to any platform which supports Java > (especially OS X as I don't have a Mac myself), therefor gGo > will remain a pure Java application without any platform > dependant code. Ahh, even better, CooL :-) Have a nice weekend! oki, Steffen --=20 Dieses Schreiben wurde maschinell erstellt, es tr=E4gt daher weder Unterschrift noch Siegel.