Reply – Re: JOCL 'edge' branch: llb binding ..
Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: JOCL 'edge' branch: llb binding ..
— by Michael Bien Michael Bien
  On 05/30/2011 05:03 AM, Sven Gothel [via jogamp] wrote:
> On Monday, May 30, 2011 04:13:46 am Michael Bien [via jogamp] wrote:
>> The last time i used LWJGL they did something
>> similar for GL which allowed easy composition of the
>> features/versions/extensions you where using in the app.
> LWJGL is a diff story, and I the benefit of creating separate namespaces (not objects)
> is questionable .. since 'functionality' in the GL case is more based on the ctx type,
> ie GL2, GL3 ..
they are doing both functionality and context separation - but this was
only an example.

> For CL, things are similar. Well, diff types for diff purposes like ctx and buffers
> are ofc natural and as you said, they already existed. This wasn't the point.
>> The edge branch is fully backwards compatible nothing has to be modified
>> in client code. (as i said before, impl detail)
> The point is the impl. detail itself.
> If hiding such in the jogamp.* package, this might not matter.
> However, I am unsure about the benefits of enforcing a new layer, just by taste.
there is no additional layer. There has always been the generated LLB
and the handwritten OO HLB. No enforcements at all, again: nothing
really changed in public API.

>> edge ->  experiments aka bleeding edge, use at your own risk
>> master ->  main branch
> As it is today, both branches are incompatible with the jogamp tree,
> but I will keep this one for later if it still applies.
my jocl repository on github is the jogamp repository - i never
reverted, rebased or did anything which would break compatibility to
other repositories. This would be far to much communication effort in a
distributed versioning system like git.


> ~Sven