Hello Johannes,
Johannes Brunen wrote:
> I have found a little difference between 1.8 and 2.0 which is
> problematic. I'm using PassiveWindow and have implemented a custom scene
> manager which basically calls the PassiveWindow 'render' method. Now,
> this one is not implemented in PassiveWindow and the base implementation
> of Window is called. This one however calls 'doSwap' (note that this is
> different from 1.8 where simply the 'swap' method was called), which is
> also not implemented in PassiveWindow. Therefore the base Win32Window
> implementation is called which does directly call system SwapBuffers.
> This call howerver is assumed to be performed by the host application in
> my setup.
yes, AFAIK this should not have changed, in other words it's a bug.
> Either the PassiveWindow must have a basically emtpy 'doSwap'
> implementation or the Window render method has to call 'swap' instead of
> 'doSwap'. IMHO the latter one is the correct choice.
hm, after looking at the code, i'm not sure what the right approach is ...
> What is the reason for the introduction of the 'doSwap' indirection?
... or the answer to this one. Gerrit can you explain what the
difference is, please ?
> Alternatively, I could implement the 'render' call myself, but I think
> that the above is a flaw and should be corrected.
i agree, thanks for the bug report.
Cheers,
Carsten
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Opensg-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-users
