On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 08:09 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Robert Bragg <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'd personally be fairly happy with the flush type approach; but I'd > > take the opportunity to add something like cogl_flush_gl_state() which I > > think would tie into ideas we've discussed in the past about improving > > the ability to break out of Cogl into raw GL. > > Internally to COGL, maybe you want to keep a _cogl_flush_matrices() > distinct from flushing 'everything' but make the public API just a > 'flush everything'? Something like that makes sense to me.
yes, agreed, regards, - Robert -- Robert Bragg, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe send a mail to [email protected]
