Re: Why run xserver on the OpenGL API?

Keith Packard <[email protected]> wrote:

> There's a difference between writing an X server that targets GL
> as the underlying device abstraction and pushing applications from
> the X rendering API towards GL. 

Yes. Maybe my initial reaction against this was more against pushing 
OpenGL down the throats of 2D API consumers (app developers and Window 
toolkit developers) than using the 3D rendering engine for all rendering, 
both 2D, 3D and Video included.

> In summary:
> 
>  +	Design GL extensions to allow for direct access to the frame
> buffer. 

Yes yes yes!

>  + 	Write a GL backend for the X server so that environments with
> GL drivers need not also provide a 2D driver. 

Ok, this makes more sense now.

>  +	Encourage device driver authors to include support for the
> above mentioned GL extensions in preference to separate 2D backends
> for X. 
> 
>  +	Encourage 2D applications to consider using cairo for rendering
> as that will allow direct GL drawing while still running on legacy
> systems (which seem to hang around forever in the open source
> world) 

There is also no reason why you cannot make the existing 2D API's work on 
top of the new back end 3D rendering engine as well. Choice of the API 
you want to use is good, as long as the back end implementation does not 
need to be different (one of the primary reasons our SNAP drivers work so 
well; the back end is identical no matter whether you are using it for 
Windows, OS/2 or Linux).

Regards,

---
Kendall Bennett
Chief Executive Officer
SciTech Software, Inc.
Phone: (530) 894 8400
http://www.scitechsoft.com

~ SciTech SNAP - The future of device driver technology! ~