replacing ITexture by "hardwarelinks"

Discuss about anything related to the Irrlicht Engine, or read announcements about any significant features or usage changes.
Nox
Posts: 304
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:23 pm

Post by Nox »

hybrid wrote:Merging IImage and ITexture is definitely much more of a difference than adding something between ITexture and COpenGLTexture or any other hw texture. So my suggestion was to start far less intrusive.
well okay. I just thought that merging IImage and ITexture is a worth goal. But of course if you dont like the merging and driversperation idea the itexturelink is not a solution. I could be used without mergin IImage and ITexture as well by just refactoring the hw-buffer out of ITexture to the ITexturelink but this is not really useful. ITexturelink is only useful if the surface interface should be reduced to one class which can be modified i.e. by manipulators and if the driver should be easily changeable.
But it is your project hence your own kingdom. I hope you will find a good way.
BlindSide
Admin
Posts: 2821
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 9:09 am
Location: NZ!

Post by BlindSide »

No It's everyones project. Some people just think they know what's best for everyone better than others :lol: (Rightfully so I might add). Everyone means everyone, not a select group of people with specific requirements.
ShadowMapping for Irrlicht!: Get it here
Need help? Come on the IRC!: #irrlicht on irc://irc.freenode.net
Nox
Posts: 304
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:23 pm

Post by Nox »

Thats problematic because it is hard or almost impossible to meet the requirements of everybody.
I just think that this idea is a way to reach some of these goals: http://www.irrlicht3d.org/wiki/index.ph ... reHandling + the driverthing.
hybrid
Admin
Posts: 14143
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:20 pm
Location: Oldenburg(Oldb), Germany
Contact:

Post by hybrid »

Yes, that's why I wrote this stuff up. But the question to be discussed is if and how this can be achieved. Moreover, it should be possible to argue about alternative approaches as well. So a thorough discussion needss to be done, and this has to be made up to a point where most if not all concerns have been addressed. There's no point in saying we'll do this and see if it's good or bad afterwards. That might be possible for internal changes, but not with changes of this degree. These changes are not planned for the next few weeks or even month, so don't expect to have this discussion end soon. If we do find a viable way - even better, but it might happen only much later as well.
Post Reply