On 6/20/05, Dirk Reiners <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This goes quite a bit beyond of I had in mind, and I don't know if I > really want to think about all the ramifications of support this OpenGL- > >OpenSG converter. OpenGL is much more general than what OpenSG can > represent, so this would only work for specific situations, and it > wouldn't be fast enough for dynamic changes (which is what I think > people might be doing with it). It would be useful for people porting > code from OpenGL, but it's a little big for now, IMHO. >
Yes, I agree with you, but you asked: "Would you prefer a more OpenGL-like interface (i.e. vertex3f() instead of vertex())?" so.... I suggested a more OpenGL interface. In fact, the JOGL is an OpenGL wrapper, but I know OpenSG is a 'little' more complex and implement all this has no sense. But I think that the set of functions that will be used in the GeoBuilder node should be named in a OpenGL fashion (like in JOGL, for example). Bye! -- Aitor Moreno [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idt77&alloc_id492&opÿick _______________________________________________ Opensg-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-users
