Menu
▾
▴
libvisual-devel
|
From: Dennis S. <sy...@yo...> - 2004-09-27 22:18:42
|
Vitaly I just tried out lvdisplay, and seriously DAMN COOL!!! We need to figure out a bit how we're going to design the rest of the API and especially the naming, but seeing it work and seeing the code really makes me happy... Now I won't be able to sleep! Cheers, Dennis :) |
|
From: Dennis S. <sy...@yo...> - 2004-11-23 18:14:05
|
Vitaly, I can't use the GLX drivers because it currently only supports GLX 1.3, and the nvidia drivers I have are 1.2... What is the actual difference between the two ? (in this case that is)... I'm implementing the VisInput ref counting right now, will check it into CVS. Cheers, Dennis |
|
From: Vitaly V. B. <vit...@us...> - 2004-11-24 17:29:42
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:13:44 +0100 Dennis Smit <sy...@yo...> wrote: > Vitaly, I can't use the GLX drivers because it currently only supports > GLX 1.3, and the nvidia drivers I have are 1.2... What is the actual That's wrong. I know no nvidia drivers (> 4xxx) that use GLX 1.2. GLX 1.2 is used by Mesa... > difference between the two ? (in this case that is)... some interfaces are bit different. Context management/offscreen rendering for example. > I'm implementing the VisInput ref counting right now, will check it > into CVS. OK. -- Vitaly GPG Key ID: F95A23B9 |
|
From: Dennis S. <sy...@yo...> - 2004-11-24 20:29:31
|
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 19:29 +0200, Vitaly V. Bursov wrote: > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:13:44 +0100 > Dennis Smit <sy...@yo...> wrote: > > > Vitaly, I can't use the GLX drivers because it currently only supports > > GLX 1.3, and the nvidia drivers I have are 1.2... What is the actual > That's wrong. I know no nvidia drivers (> 4xxx) that use GLX 1.2. > GLX 1.2 is used by Mesa... Hmms that is strange, I'm on nvidia 100% positive... > > I'm implementing the VisInput ref counting right now, will check it > > into CVS. I ended up implementing VisObject and have refcounting and object dtoring for virtually every object in libvisual :) Cheers, Dennis |
|
From: Vitaly V. B. <vit...@us...> - 2004-11-25 18:19:23
Attachments:
lv-auto.diff
|
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 21:29:03 +0100
Dennis Smit <sy...@yo...> wrote:
> > That's wrong. I know no nvidia drivers (> 4xxx) that use GLX 1.2.
> > GLX 1.2 is used by Mesa...
>
> Hmms that is strange, I'm on nvidia 100% positive...
$ find /usr/X11R6/lib /usr/lib -name 'libglx*' -or -name '*GL*'
should look smth like this... if there are some "strange" duplicates
they may cause such problems.
======
/usr/X11R6/lib/modules/extensions/libglx.so
/usr/X11R6/lib/modules/extensions/libglx.so.1.0.6629
/usr/X11R6/lib/libGLU.a
/usr/X11R6/lib/libGLU.so.1.3
/usr/X11R6/lib/libGLU.so.1
/usr/X11R6/lib/libGLU.so
/usr/X11R6/lib/libGLw.so.1.0
/usr/X11R6/lib/libGLw.so.1
/usr/X11R6/lib/libGLw.so
/usr/X11R6/lib/libGLw.a
/usr/lib/perl5/5.8.5/unicore/lib/lb/GL.pl
/usr/lib/libGL.so.1.0.6629
/usr/lib/libGLcore.so.1.0.6629
/usr/lib/libGL.la
/usr/lib/libGL.so.1
/usr/lib/libGL.so
/usr/lib/libGLcore.so.1
======
regarding to autotools. Patch modifies/adds these options
--enable-debug
--enable-extra-optimization
it also defines LIBVISUAL_PLUGINS_BASE_DIR variable to specify base
dir for plugins. i.e. dir that contains actor, input, morph.
Please review.
If you'll keep BASE_DIR portion of a patch, it would be nice if
libvisual's plugin loader loaded LIBVISUAL_PLUGINS_BASE_DIR/*/*.so
libraries, not LIBVISUAL_PLUGINS_BASE_DIR/{actor,...}/*.so.
ps. lvdisplay autotoolsification is almost done :) it only depends
on what you, Dennis, think about LIBVISUAL_PLUGINS_BASE_DIR etc.
--
Vitaly
GPG Key ID: F95A23B9
|
|
From: Dennis S. <sy...@yo...> - 2004-11-25 21:07:13
|
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 20:19 +0200, Vitaly V. Bursov wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 21:29:03 +0100
> Dennis Smit <sy...@yo...> wrote:
>
> > > That's wrong. I know no nvidia drivers (> 4xxx) that use GLX 1.2.
> > > GLX 1.2 is used by Mesa...
> >
> > Hmms that is strange, I'm on nvidia 100% positive...
>
> $ find /usr/X11R6/lib /usr/lib -name 'libglx*' -or -name '*GL*'
> should look smth like this... if there are some "strange" duplicates
> they may cause such problems.
Rightos, apt-get installed mesa3d again on an upgrade, I fixed this by
installing the new NVIDIA drivers ;), thanks !
> regarding to autotools. Patch modifies/adds these options
> --enable-debug
> --enable-extra-optimization
Sounds good, we already had --enable-debug I'm quite sure :)
> it also defines LIBVISUAL_PLUGINS_BASE_DIR variable to specify base
> dir for plugins. i.e. dir that contains actor, input, morph.
>
> Please review.
>
> If you'll keep BASE_DIR portion of a patch, it would be nice if
> libvisual's plugin loader loaded LIBVISUAL_PLUGINS_BASE_DIR/*/*.so
> libraries, not LIBVISUAL_PLUGINS_BASE_DIR/{actor,...}/*.so.
>
> ps. lvdisplay autotoolsification is almost done :) it only depends
> on what you, Dennis, think about LIBVISUAL_PLUGINS_BASE_DIR etc.
I partially agree with you, having the BASE_DIR stuff sounds good,
however having the plugin loader recursively aggegrate is doubtful.
someone might add a plugin path that is somewhere at top in the
filesystem and gets the plugin loader to recursive read half the
filesystem.
What do you think ?
Cheers,
Dennis
|
|
From: Dennis S. <sy...@yo...> - 2004-11-27 14:38:45
|
Patch has been merged! Thanks a lot it's a nice cleanup.
the LIBVISUAL_PLUGIN_BASE_DIR path has also been merged.
however I don't think it's a good idea to make the loader
recursive. I gave the reason in an earlier post.
Btw, do you have time to do this auto cleanup style for
the other packages as well ?
Thanks a lot,
Dennis
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 20:19 +0200, Vitaly V. Bursov wrote:
> regarding to autotools. Patch modifies/adds these options
> --enable-debug
> --enable-extra-optimization
>
> it also defines LIBVISUAL_PLUGINS_BASE_DIR variable to specify base
> dir for plugins. i.e. dir that contains actor, input, morph.
>
> Please review.
>
> If you'll keep BASE_DIR portion of a patch, it would be nice if
> libvisual's plugin loader loaded LIBVISUAL_PLUGINS_BASE_DIR/*/*.so
> libraries, not LIBVISUAL_PLUGINS_BASE_DIR/{actor,...}/*.so.
>
> ps. lvdisplay autotoolsification is almost done :) it only depends
> on what you, Dennis, think about LIBVISUAL_PLUGINS_BASE_DIR etc.
>
|
|
From: Vitaly V. B. <vit...@uk...> - 2004-11-27 23:49:03
|
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 15:38:41 +0100 Dennis Smit <sy...@yo...> wrote: > however I don't think it's a good idea to make the loader > recursive. I gave the reason in an earlier post. Maybe you're right... Why not to scan only first subdirectory level? > Btw, do you have time to do this auto cleanup style for > the other packages as well ? Yeah. -- Vitaly GPG Key ID: F95A23B9 |
|
From: Dennis S. <sy...@yo...> - 2004-11-28 01:57:43
|
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 23:26 +0200, Vitaly V. Bursov wrote: > On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 15:38:41 +0100 > Dennis Smit <sy...@yo...> wrote: > > > however I don't think it's a good idea to make the loader > > recursive. I gave the reason in an earlier post. > Maybe you're right... Why not to scan only first subdirectory > level? I think this is kinda 'hacky' like in 'well, we just scan the FIRST subdir.. I rather use the method we're using right now.. personally that is. > > Btw, do you have time to do this auto cleanup style for > > the other packages as well ? > Yeah. Alright, I'm very happy with that!! Thanks ;) |
|
From: Vitaly V. B. <vit...@us...> - 2004-11-28 00:15:11
|
Dennis, How do you think lvdisplay's headers should be installed? include/libvisual/display include/libvisual-display include/lvdisplay Others? I'm not sure. -- Vitaly GPG Key ID: F95A23B9 |
|
From: Dennis S. <sy...@yo...> - 2004-11-28 02:04:08
|
Now we're talking about this anyway... We should get the API prefix right as well. for libvisual we're currently using: libvisual (for for plugin path as api namespace) for libvisual-widget we're using: lvw (same story) for libvisual-display we're using: lvdisplay .. and no plugin path yet. I think it's important to decide what we want here.. Aka how are we going to define the namespace of our libraries should we go lv_ lvw_ lvd_ ... or is visual lvwidget lvdisplay nicer ? I'm kinda undecided here, tempted to just 'let it go for a while' but that might be not the best thing to do! But in the current fashion, it would be include/lvdisplay... :) Cheers, Dennis On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 02:15 +0200, Vitaly V. Bursov wrote: > Dennis, > > How do you think lvdisplay's headers should be installed? > > include/libvisual/display > include/libvisual-display > include/lvdisplay > > Others? I'm not sure. > |
|
From: Vitaly V. B. <vit...@us...> - 2004-11-28 02:19:17
Attachments:
lv-autotools.diff.bz2
|
Ok, here's a patch. I can't test bmp, xmms and nebulus right now, but "plugins" looks like works fine. Next, visual_plugin_get_list function will fail and return NULL if list with plugin directories contains non-existing (e.g.) directory even if there are other dirs with valid plugins... I think it's wrong. -- Vitaly GPG Key ID: F95A23B9 |
|
From: Dennis S. <sy...@yo...> - 2004-11-28 13:31:48
|
Thanks a lot for the patch, everything is merged and looking
good!!!, awesome :)
Regarding visual_plugin_get_list:
2004-11-28 Dennis Smit <ds...@ne...>
* libvisual/lv_plugin.c (visual_plugin_get_list):
Don't completely bail out when there is a invalid path in the
plugin
registry. Instead spit a warning and just use those that are
valid.
That is fixed as well, thanks for pointing out ;)
Cheers,
Dennis
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 02:10 +0200, Vitaly V. Bursov wrote:
> Ok, here's a patch. I can't test bmp, xmms and nebulus right now,
> but "plugins" looks like works fine.
>
>
> Next, visual_plugin_get_list function will fail and return NULL
> if list with plugin directories contains non-existing (e.g.)
> directory even if there are other dirs with valid plugins...
> I think it's wrong.
>
|
|
From: Vitaly V. B. <vit...@us...> - 2004-11-28 11:30:15
|
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 03:03:52 +0100 Dennis Smit <sy...@yo...> wrote: > for libvisual-display we're using: > lvdisplay .. and no plugin path yet. Hm. Is "lv" prefix necessary? anyway, it's in libvisual directory. Currently I install drivers to libvisual/display/. ;) > I think it's important to decide what we want here.. > > Aka how are we going to define the namespace of our libraries > should we go lv_ lvw_ lvd_ ... or is visual lvwidget lvdisplay nicer ? Lvd for structures, lvdisplay_ for functions. > But in the current fashion, it would be include/lvdisplay... :) Yes, I agree. -- Vitaly GPG Key ID: F95A23B9 |
|
From: Dennis S. <sy...@yo...> - 2004-11-28 12:49:16
|
On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 13:29 +0200, Vitaly V. Bursov wrote: > On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 03:03:52 +0100 > Dennis Smit <sy...@yo...> wrote: > > > for libvisual-display we're using: > > lvdisplay .. and no plugin path yet. > Hm. Is "lv" prefix necessary? anyway, it's in libvisual directory. > Currently I install drivers to libvisual/display/. ;) That is good! > > I think it's important to decide what we want here.. > > > > Aka how are we going to define the namespace of our libraries > > should we go lv_ lvw_ lvd_ ... or is visual lvwidget lvdisplay nicer ? > Lvd for structures, lvdisplay_ for functions. Ok, I'll be changing lvw to be lvwidget :) |
|
From: Dennis S. <sy...@yo...> - 2004-11-25 21:09:09
|
Ooh one other thing.. Lvdisplay looks good, the two GL contexts in one process transparantly is awesome! However there is this weird bug where sometimes a windows shows without a border! :) Any idea about this, can't find a good reproduction pattern tho... Cheers, Dennis |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X