On 31 May 2010 17:45, Juan Vuletich <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Stef, Igor, > > (copied Igor too) > > Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >> >> On May 30, 2010, at 10:57 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: >> >> >>> >>> On 30 May 2010 23:08, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> cool post >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Yeah, these things are quite interesting. Except that not much people >>> actually interested in it :) >>> >> >> I do not think so. >> Good posts are read more that you believe. Now in mailing-list the numbers >> of mails >> cut the knowledge after a point. >> >> >>> >>> Here's another thing, which can be done right (if we want). >>> >>> Rome/OpenVG Paths is actually nothing else than a special kind of more >>> general thing - shape. >>> >>> So, at very basis, we should have only two components for painting: >>> shape and paint. >>> And in fact we need to support only a single operation: fill the shape >>> with given paint. >>> (The path stroke could be seen as a special kind of fill) >>> >>> >>> So the question is: Really. Why we should constrain ourselves with >>> specific things >>> from a very starting, by cutting out a most basic (and abstact ideas) >>> behind? >>> >>> There are infinite number of ways, how one could define a shape. >>> While paths is only a small, yet effective representation of shapes. >>> In same way there are infinite number of ways how one could define a >>> paint. >>> >>> Then this looks like a strong basis for building-up a powerful & >>> flexible graphics engine :) >>> >> >> I do not know. Do the other frameworks outside smalltalk use something >> else >> than paths? >> I think that we should start - making rome working. We are nearly there >> - test it >> - refactor it. >> - I would like to see the canvas for morphic30 too. >> - refactor the system to use that. >> stef >> > > The current Morphic 3 canvas is based on SVG / OpenVG. The main element is > the path. But the fundamental building block is a trajectory of a pen that > defines shapes, and fills. So it is easy to extend to ways to define shapes > other than paths. > How about shapes which defined by other means than trajectory of pen? Suppose things like parametric shapes. Circle/ellipse for instance could be defined by 1 coordinate and radius(es).
> BTW, the Morphic 3 canvas is separated from the Morphs and their geometry. > This means that Morphic 3 morphs could be used with Athens / Rome / Cairo, > or even with Balloon. It also means that the Morphic 3 canvas could be used > with Morphic 2, Tweak or any other framework that can call an OpenVG like > api. > > I'm working on an update to the Morphic 3 web page right now. Will be ready > today or tomorrow, and it will include some actual samples of rendering. > Oh. This is indeed good news. I read about Morphic3 before, but you never mentined the details about it infrastructure. Now, its really nice to know that it is based on similar concepts. > Cheers, > Juan Vuletich > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
