2010/1/14 Jay Tennant <[email protected]>: >> From: Ralph Versteegen <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:33 AM >> >> 2010/1/6 <[email protected]>: >> > jay >> > 2010-01-05 09:04:08 -0800 (Tue, 05 Jan 2010) >> > 461 >> > gfx_sdl backend, update. Working on rewriting the sdl backend--also means >> > removing Windows dependencies--so gfx_sdl can be loaded just like >> > gfx_directx, and with cleaner interfacing. Also adding gfx_common that >> > contains source that will be common to all backends implemented as dll's. >> > Still need to remove duplicate source in gfx_directx, gfx_sdl, and >> > gfx_common. Also, need to build platform independence into all gfx_common >> > files (specifically, "_tstring.h"). >> > --- >> > A wip/gfx_common/ >> > A wip/gfx_common/_tstring.cpp >> > A wip/gfx_common/_tstring.h >> > A wip/gfx_common/fb_scancodes.h >> > A wip/gfx_common/gfx_msg.h >> > A wip/gfx_common/gfx_palette.h >> > A wip/gfx_sdl/ >> > A wip/gfx_sdl/source/ >> > A wip/gfx_sdl/source/Graphics.h >> > A wip/gfx_sdl/source/Input.h >> > A wip/gfx_sdl/source/Window.h >> > A wip/gfx_sdl/source/_tstring.cpp >> > A wip/gfx_sdl/source/_tstring.h >> > A wip/gfx_sdl/source/fb_scancodes.h >> > A wip/gfx_sdl/source/gfx_msg.h >> > A wip/gfx_sdl/source/gfx_palette.h >> > A wip/gfx_sdl/source/gfx_sdl.cpp >> > A wip/gfx_sdl/source/gfx_sdl.h >> >> This is rather absurdly delayed but: >> >> What are the goals of this C++ rewrite? I guess you just wanted to >> push on with the new interface rather than waiting for me to rewrite >> all the backends :) > > Essentially, yes. I didn't want to put all the coding burden on you, and I > wanted to learn the sdl api.
OK, but no need to make it unnecessarily complex. I notice some stubs functions for aspect ratio preservation. Do you actually intend to implement this? >> Also, I still don't see significant benefit to run-time linking >> backends, but that's OK, it should not be hard to statically link it. > > Uniform interface for the backends/engine, smaller app size, the backend > would be the only os-specific object--therefore, only one engine compile and > a user-selected backend, called ie: "game.exe -gfx gfx_directx.dll" or > "game.exe -gfx gfx_sdl.dll", etc. Perhaps if "game.exe" is called, it > searches for a "default" backend, such as gfx_sdl.dll. > > If there was only 1 backend, there'd not be much point to this. Because there > are 4 backends, however, the justification is there. As an example you can > look at different emulators, such as ePSXe, that require you to acquire a few > backends to fully run. We don't need to make the ohr engine that complex, but > separating the backend from the engine is a good idea. That also means that > if a backend works perfectly, we don't have to re-release it. Or if the > backend is the only element needing adjustment, we don't have to re-release > the entire engine. While I still don't see the benefits as too significant, I can't really help but agree that it would be nice. Of course, gfx_fb and gfx_alleg can stay how they are. I think the new interface still needs more changes but will talk about that some other time. _______________________________________________ Ohrrpgce mailing list [email protected] http://lists.motherhamster.org/listinfo.cgi/ohrrpgce-motherhamster.org
