On 19 April 2010 21:41, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: > igor > > do you think that we got have a svg canvas: as a merge between what you show > us at Brest -- with the tiger and using the rome cnavas -- having a dedicated > subclass for svg. >
Well, the problem is, that the above frameworks putting us into a constraints. While, we can do things like that (http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems3/gpugems3_ch25.html) ourselves, without using 3rd party stuff. I know, it sounds like NIH syndrome, but i am concerned, that using rome or svg we will be able to render a 10 browser windows on a desktop with 25 frames/second rate. The above stuff may be fast enough, when you updating only a portions of the display surface (like currently Morphic does and optimized for that). But things like zoom-in or zoom out, obviously require a full desktop update at each frame, so we need a framework which can support a decent frame rate for this. This means, that such framework should not rely on a techniques/optimizations, which require updating only a portions of screen, but instead, its throughput should be high enough to redraw a full screen each 1/25 second. > Stef > > On Apr 19, 2010, at 7:32 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > >> This is where, i think we should be heading: >> >> http://ahead.com >> >> And this is why i think, a graphics frameworks should be vector based, >> not a pixel based one. >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko AKA sig. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
