On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Brett Johnson wrote:
> > Finally, ISVs could just restrict themselves to whatever entry
> > points happen to be in the libGL they're running under. This is a
> > copout, but might often happen - it imposes no additional burdens on
> > ISV, libGL supplier, or driver supplier.
>
> I don't think that this approach offers much incentive for graphics card
> vendors to use our ABI. I know that HP offers some vendor extensions that
> offer significant differentiation (occlusion culling comes to mind). We
> wouldn't have much incentive to provide drivers if they didn't provide some
> differentiation for our hardware. So I don't think this is practical either.
Well, it depends on where libgl comes from - if it's Mesa, there is no
problem. You can add your extension into the latest stable release
and turn around a new libGL any time you need it.
If you aren't based around Mesa then I'd presume you have direct
contact with whoever is supplying it and can make suitable arrangements.
Don't think in the M$ mindset where you have to wait forever for
some nebulous future upgrade - things can work much faster in our
Brave New World.
Steve Baker (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail)
Raytheon Systems Inc. (817)619-2466 (Fax)
Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hti.com
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
