On 2 August 2013 08:39, Sletta Gunnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Aug 1, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Laszlo Papp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Sletta Gunnar <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Indeed, the proposed patch created an new library (which was only built > when manually cd'ing into src/scenegraph and building it there) which would > not have been usable together with Qt Quick (until Qt 6, that is). > > > > I would be personally more than happy for scene graph to become compact, > i.e. qml and qtquick being a separate layer. I do not mind in which > repository this separation happens in; that is just details for me, not a > technology show stopper. That brings me to my question: although I was > attending to the session, have you discussed this out of the session with > others? > > > > Have I discussed it outside, yes. I posted a mail to the mailing list a > month or so back with little response and I've discussed it with a couple > of people directly. The topic usually ends on: what is the benefit of using > the stripped-down SG API, without text support, when you could do much the > same and probably do something even faster, dedicated for your purpose > using raw OpenGL. What is blocking the text support being added later if it is not yet available? > The new renderer, I've been working on will make it a bit harder to beat, > but for a specific usecase, raw OpenGL will always be better. > 5.2 material or later? > I think 1. makes sense regardless, because it makes the codebase cleaner. > The session kinda concluded that 2-4 are not needed. Then again, if 1 is in > place, pulling that into its own library which can be used stand-alone is > pretty simple, so the presence of 2-4 is less pressing. > The audience may not need it, but I would. :-) "less pressing" means it is not high priority for you, but contribution is welcome?
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
