Re: [Mesa3d-dev] Mesa vs Xfree DRI

[Denis O. K. <do...@di...>]

Quoting Keith Whitwell (ke...@tu...):
> Jon Smirl wrote:
> >With embedded Mesa I now have driver objects
> >(XXX_dri.so) that don't depend on X or X include
> >files. What would it take to get XFree DRI to switch
> >over to using these objects? 
> >
> >I don't see any technical problems stopping this.
> >Xfree just needs to adjust some glue code such as
> >moving GLX references out of the drivers objects and
> >back into XFree.
> >
> >Advantages:
> >1) The driver objects and Mesa could live in a single
> >source tree - the Mesa one.
> >2) Driver objects could be released independent of
> >XFree releases.
> >2) The driver objects can be used for other purposes
> >such as DirectFB or standalone OpenGL.
> >3) This model provides a cleaner way of plugging in
> >closed source OpenGL implementations.
> >
> >Am I missing something, are there big reasons not to
> >do this?
> 
> No, and in fact the plan is to do this -- just need to get them building 
> over on Mesa, etc.

Hi,

I really want that, too.

I'm planning to create a client side libGL which implements GLX direct
rendering via XDirectFB by simply using DirectFBGL locally on the window or
layer with the ID obtained from the server.

I'm also planning to add hw accelerated indirect rendering to XDirectFB.

-- 
Best regards,
  Denis Oliver Kropp

.------------------------------------------.
| DirectFB - Hardware accelerated graphics |
| http://www.directfb.org/                 |
"------------------------------------------"

                            Convergence GmbH