On Thursday 03 February 2005 18:55, Cody Brocious wrote: > I apologize for talking about this here, and also apologise for coming > off as sounding like I wanted him to rewrite it, and also for > forgetting one of the larger points I wanted to make. > > If we seperate the backend from the frontend, it'll make it easier to > tie into mesa, in theory. I'd love to help in any way possible, and I > was mainly asking for opinions on whether this method would be useful > or even work, as I'm entirely new to the low-level portions of 3d. > I've never so much as read the source of a video card driver; the > closest I've come is reading the source for the simulator. > > If you think that my idea for abstraction might be useful in the > least, I'll take a shot at it, as I am very interested in contributing > to this project, even though I'm not very knowledgable in the > low-level details.
The thing is, there already *is* abstraction going on. It's in the socket interface between the simulator and the client. It's *already* possible to write a GL implementation using Mesa that sends drawing commands to the simulator, without changing the current simulator program at all. The client part won't have any dependencies other than the (rather small) client library that implements the communication protocol. That's the whole point of the simulator, after all. cu, Nicolai
pgpqel5CVOJdt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
