Kevin Lawton wrote:
>
> Ramon van Handel wrote:
>
> > But SDL *IS* X on systems which don't support a more advanced form of
> > graphics... that's the whole idea behind the use of SDL!
> >
> > We want to use SDL in order to save us a lot of porting work. If you're
> > going to be doing porting anyway, might as well forget about
> > SDL... there's no point...
>
> Do we know that the SDL interface will keep up with advances
> in X+DGA, 3D accelerations, etc?
That's the goal of SDL. I sure hope it'll do just that!
> I'm not big on the idea of _requiring_ another library, as it
> adds to the memory footprint of plex86, especially for
> bordline machines.
You can create stripped versions of SDL, I think,
that only support ONE backend (such as X).
> If there are no big arguments against doing an SDL port
> first, then OK let's do that. But tying our protocol specifically
> to SDL is a major architectural blunder. You have to ask yourself
> as a developer, do I need to do this? The answer is no. In
> which case you abstract the interface, and leave the door open.
Well, the basic idea is that SDL will have to have abstracted
the interface already in order to be so portable, so...
let these guys do the hard work for us! we're not graphics
experts, we do VMs. Let them do the graphics abstraction sort
of stuff, and we use it. SDL itself is already an abstraction
of the graphics interface.
-- Ramon
