On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 09:03:21AM -1000, Eric Firing wrote:
> Good, thank you. This brings up the larger question of the major
> redesign that is underway, and how to make sure we don't lose the
> benefit of wonderful speedups like quadmesh. How hard would it be to
> translate it to use the swig-wrapped version of agg rather than
> accessing agg directly via the present pycxx _backend_agg.cpp? And how
> much performance do you think would be lost? Alternatively, is there a
> better way to put the fast rendering capability in a smaller piece of
> extension code that can be used in the new framework and that would not
> rely on pycxx? E.g., a small swiggable chunk?
It is a long time since I've looked at the code, and I wasn't even
the original author. Furthermore I don't know swig, nor am I particularly
familiar with pycxx, so I can't answer your question.
I imagine given an agg context, however that is usually done, that a
walk of some arrays is all we need to do. Simplifying the
representations on the python side will help a lot IIRC.
The interface to my OpenGL plotter (not pylab enabled, sorry!)
wasn't complex.
Anyway, I'll be gone next week until mid-August, so don't expect
anything before the end of summer.
- Paul
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Matplotlib-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-devel
