RE: GtkGLExt (was Re: Gtk 3.0)

8:06 +0100 > From: y...@physics.muni.cz > To: jose.carlos.pere...@ist.utl.pt > Subject: Re: GtkGLExt (was Re: Gtk 3.0) > CC: gtk-app-devel-list@gnome.org > > On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 04:22:36PM +, Carlos Pereira wrote: > > We must atract more scientifc/engineering

Re: GtkGLExt (was Re: Gtk 3.0)

On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 04:22:36PM +, Carlos Pereira wrote: > We must atract more scientifc/engineering applications for Linux and > GTK, because this is exactly the kind of stuff that enterprises and > universities are demanding. > > If we have fantastic operating systems and desktop envir

Re: GtkGLExt (was Re: Gtk 3.0)

Dear Emmanuele, yes. and that, apart from games and scientific/technical applications, it's not at all common. the amount of code using OpenGL is relatively limited (hence "niche") compared to the rest of applications in the GNOME stack (or even in the whole Linux ecosystem); it's *usage*

Re: GtkGLExt (was Re: Gtk 3.0)

On 12/05/2009 12:28 AM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 18:11 -0500, Braden McDaniel wrote: I have the impression that my message is not coming through correctly, because I keep saying the same things. :-) I never said that raw OperGL is not used, or not useful; I just contend tha

Re: GtkGLExt (was Re: Gtk 3.0)

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > (Sorry, I'm sending this via my phone so it's not going to be nicely > formatted; I apologize) > > I'm really not working on it - mainly for three reasons: 1) if you want to > use GL, GtkGlExt is "good enough" and integrating it into gtk+ it

Re: GtkGLExt (was Re: Gtk 3.0)

2009/12/4 Carlos Pereira : > 3) However GtkGlExt is not GTK-3.0 ready, because it cannot be compiled with > SEAL_ENABLE and SINGLE_INCLUDES... Bug and patch filled upstream for SINGLE_INCLUDES issue: [1] Also, I've found some interesting threads about this topic here [2] (Sept 2003) and here [3]

Re: GtkGLExt (was Re: Gtk 3.0)

On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 18:11 -0500, Braden McDaniel wrote: I have the impression that my message is not coming through correctly, because I keep saying the same things. :-) > > I never said that raw OperGL is not used, or not useful; I just contend > > that being able to drop into GL directly is

Re: GtkGLExt (was Re: Gtk 3.0)

Emmanuele Bassi wrote: On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 20:51 +, Carlos Pereira wrote: Hi Emmanuele, I'm really not working on it - mainly for three reasons: 1) if you want to use GL, GtkGlExt is "good enough" and integrating it into gtk+ it's not a good idea; 1) If you think GtkGlExt should not be in

Re: GtkGLExt (was Re: Gtk 3.0)

On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 22:26 +0100, David Nečas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 08:51:54PM +, Carlos Pereira wrote: > >> I'm really not working on it - mainly for three reasons: 1) if you want to > >> use GL, GtkGlExt is "good enough" and integrating it into gtk+ it's not a > >> good idea; > >

Re: GtkGLExt (was Re: Gtk 3.0)

On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 20:51 +, Carlos Pereira wrote: > Hi Emmanuele, > > I'm really not working on it - mainly for three reasons: 1) if you want to > > use GL, GtkGlExt is "good enough" and integrating it into gtk+ it's not a > > good idea; > 1) If you think GtkGlExt should not be integrated wi

RE: GtkGLExt (was Re: Gtk 3.0)

like pango/cairo, as a compiler option module. EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD Join me > Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 22:26:05 +0100 > From: y...@physics.muni.cz > To: eba...@gmail.com; jose.carlos.pere...@ist.utl.pt > Subject: Re: GtkGLExt (was Re: Gtk 3.0) > CC: gtk-app-devel-list@gnome.or

Re: GtkGLExt (was Re: Gtk 3.0)

On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 08:51:54PM +, Carlos Pereira wrote: >> I'm really not working on it - mainly for three reasons: 1) if you want to >> use GL, GtkGlExt is "good enough" and integrating it into gtk+ it's not a >> good idea; > > 2) GtkGlExt is good enough for GTK-2.0, I never had a single p

Re: GtkGLExt (was Re: Gtk 3.0)

Hi Emmanuele, I'm really not working on it - mainly for three reasons: 1) if you want to use GL, GtkGlExt is "good enough" and integrating it into gtk+ it's not a good idea; 1) If you think GtkGlExt should not be integrated with GTK+ that's fine for me. 2) GtkGlExt is good enough for GTK-2.0,

Re: GtkGLExt (was Re: Gtk 3.0)

(Sorry, I'm sending this via my phone so it's not going to be nicely formatted; I apologize) I'm really not working on it - mainly for three reasons: 1) if you want to use GL, GtkGlExt is "good enough" and integrating it into gtk+ it's not a good idea; 2) cairo should get GPU acceleration for 2D d

Re: GtkGLExt (was Re: Gtk 3.0)

Thanks Javier, it's good to know that EmmanueleBassi is now taking care of GtkGLExt integration with GTK... Regards, Carlos Hello Carlos, 2009/12/3 Carlos Pereira : That's why I asked in the first message of this thread, what are the plans regarding