On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 05:29:54PM -0600, Brian Paul wrote: > Keith Whitwell wrote: >... > > One thing that is a bit confusing is that some drivers are just drivers, > > wheras others are combinations of drivers and window system interfaces. > > It would be nice to have just drivers here and move the various window > > system binding codes to another directory. > > > > This way you'd get to see a lot of similarity between the > > framebuffer-type drivers and it might be possible to abstract them down > > to not much, using either templates from common/ or a new module like > > the one Phil proposed. > > > > So, anyway, the new proposal would be something like > > > > libGL/ > > X11 - standalone X11 libGL > > In the cases where the API and driver are tightly integrated (X11 > Mesa, OSMesa, DOS, Windows, etc.) I'd rather just keep things > basically as-is (in the driver directory).
But they dont _have_ to be tightly integrated. I've already proved that OSMesa can be abstracted onto a more generic interface. My current working tree, now has osmesa.c down to 396 lines, with the bulk of the code now in the "generic" side. The original osmesa.c is 2180 lines. I hope to soon prove that GLX can work well on top of a "generic" layer, too. The DOS and Windows cases are SIMPLER than the GLX case, so if GLX works well, those will also. I dont remember the specifics, unfortunately, but I noticed a certain amount of bit-rot in the Windows-specific mesa driver (maybe it was the SVGA driver) If it was using a common generic mesa API, it would not have had the same problem. Migrating some of the various subtrees to use a common mesa pseudo-hardware interface, would actually reduce long-term maintainance. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: eBay Get office equipment for less on eBay! http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5 _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
