On Sunday 03 July 2005 19:21, Matthew Tippett wrote: > There is a standard name the library. > > See Section 8.2 - Packaging/Libraries of the OpenGL|ES spec on Khronos' web > page. > > It should be libGLES_xx.so where xx is CM or CL.
Those correspond to libraries that implement OpenGL|ES. We're not implementing OpenGL|ES here. We're coopting its window system API. In principle we should be allowed to export the EGL API from any of the following: libGL.so - full OpenGL libGLES_CM.so - OpenGL|ES Common profile libGLES_CL.so - OpenGL|ES Common-Lite profile In particular, GLES specifies that glGetString(GL_VERSION) explicitly returns the GLES profile at the head of the string. This gives a generic GL engine a way of knowing whether it's running on full GL or one of the subsets. The implication there is that the use of the EGL API does not necessarily imply the use of a GLES subset. My concern is not so much what happens in libGLES_*. They'll export the EGL API, use the EGL driver model, etc. That's a given. My concern is which library, on a full-GL system, is responsible for advertising the EGL API. I think it should be libGL, and not some new libEGL. We don't split GLX from GL with a libGLX; I don't see why EGL should be different. - ajax
pgpAXBlfgbggL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
