Re: [CsMain] Advice for a GSoC idea

On 29.03.2011 15:37, Antony Martin wrote:
> OK I got a better overview now. The "unified" syntax wouldn't be very different 
> I guess, it should force both the VP and the FP to be of the same language for 
> example.

From a syntax perspective there should be a new XML tag for “unified”
shaders. (E.g. simply “<shader>”.) That way (a) old and new syntax can
be distinguished (b) you can just assume all programs are in the right
language (anything else -> syntax error).

> I take a look into your source code. It is quite big so I'm still lost but I've 
> spotted the GLShaderCg::csShaderGLCGFP/VP classes. Would an "unification" 
> involves to kinda merge them so that we will no longer be able to do an 
> Activate() that only acts on the active FP or VP?

You should, for the start, don't attempt to “merge” any of the existing
shader plugin implementations.
Backwards compatibility should be provided by a wrapper plugin
(you wrap a VP+FP pair and “activation” etc of the unified plugin just
activates the wrapped plugins).

-f.r.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Create and publish websites with WebMatrix
Use the most popular FREE web apps or write code yourself; 
WebMatrix provides all the features you need to develop and 
publish your website. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-webmatrix-sf

_______________________________________________
Crystal-main mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/crystal-main
Unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk2TcO4ACgkQNCTzcE/07ey61QCgs7ru5n1t0PymYCBlr3LnMmYA
BIUAn087uDNGz1faDskfPxEAyE5TRgyJ
=hYeV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----