On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Brian S. Julin wrote: > Fabio: > > I don't understand why applications that want to have a "transparent" > backbuffer cannot just use display-tile. It is really simple to do, > and target independent. Where is the need for saving the backbuffer > inside the display target itself? > > Give even one real-world example of an application that cannot afford, > for performance reasons, to run on display-tile, but at the same time > cannot easily redraw (or draw the next frame.) You seem to be saying > that there is demand for this feature, but I don't see any evidence of > that at all.
AROS could be such an application, for example: it takes advantage of the X acceleration, and uses the backing store facility of X. If it had to use an it's own backbuffer then it couldn't use acceleration, and the same would happene for all applications which used display-tile. However, if you don't want to implement backing store it's fine, but don't stop the application! The application can still run, even without backing store. > What you are advocating would be a *lot* of man hours, and, no, it's > not that we are "lazy" as you have said, because noone that spends > several hours of their spare time per week programming rather than > playing video games, watching the tube, eating, sleeping, or having > sex, all of which are generally much more fun, deserve to be called > that. It's that we have a realistic grasp on the amount of work that > we can afford to do per week, and the time it will take to reach our > goals. I remmeber I used a smiley when I said that the problem seems to be "laziness"... I was just kidding, I didn't mean to offend anyone. Fabio Alemagna
