Windowing(DirectX/OpenGL)

#**101** 04-13-2005, 06:59 PM

I wrote:

>>>>First, the ARB embraced the extension mechanism before DirectX was
>>>>even Direct IX :-). As for liking it, you wouldn't want to embrace
>>>>something you didn't like, now would you? The extension mechanism
>>>>was used way back in OpenGL 1.0 days -- even Microsoft used it!

WTH replied:
>>
>>>Not in the OpenGL 1.0 days they didn't. Relative newcomers to
>>>OpenGL don't seem to understand the difference between extensions
>>>during (for example) 1992-1997.

I responded:

>>I'm certainly not a "relative newcomer to OpenGL" -- I was part of the
>>Digital team working on OpenGL before 1.0.
>>
>>I don't have access to a 1.0 Microsoft implementation, but the 1.1
>>version certainly supports extensions --
>>
>>GL_WIN_swap_hint GL_EXT_bgra GL_EXT_paletted_texture
>>
>>Note that this already uses the EXT code.
>
>
WTH continued:
> I'm unsure as to your purpose in telling me that 1.1 had extensions... Did
> someone claim something different? As for extensions prior to 1.1, did
> someone claim that nobody had extensions to OpenGL then?

I was responding to you -- "Not in the OpenGL 1.0 days they didn't." --
see quoted lines above.

WTH continued:

> ARB extensions are generated by individual hardware vendors and then
> accepted more broadly? Funny, I thought ARB extensions were hardware vendor
> extensions that were voted on by the board in order to 'bless them' as 'ARB
> extensions'...

Exactly -- I just expressed it as an informal process rather than the
formal voting. The threshold for approval was fairly low since there was
no need for everyone to implement them.

==
Andy V

#**102** 04-13-2005, 06:59 PM

I wrote:

>>>>First, the ARB embraced the extension mechanism before DirectX was
>>>>even Direct IX :-). As for liking it, you wouldn't want to embrace
>>>>something you didn't like, now would you? The extension mechanism
>>>>was used way back in OpenGL 1.0 days -- even Microsoft used it!

WTH replied:
>>
>>>Not in the OpenGL 1.0 days they didn't. Relative newcomers to
>>>OpenGL don't seem to understand the difference between extensions
>>>during (for example) 1992-1997.

I responded:

>>I'm certainly not a "relative newcomer to OpenGL" -- I was part of the
>>Digital team working on OpenGL before 1.0.
>>
>>I don't have access to a 1.0 Microsoft implementation, but the 1.1
>>version certainly supports extensions --
>>
>>GL_WIN_swap_hint GL_EXT_bgra GL_EXT_paletted_texture
>>
>>Note that this already uses the EXT code.
>
>
WTH continued:
> I'm unsure as to your purpose in telling me that 1.1 had extensions... Did
> someone claim something different? As for extensions prior to 1.1, did
> someone claim that nobody had extensions to OpenGL then?

I was responding to you -- "Not in the OpenGL 1.0 days they didn't." --
see quoted lines above.

WTH continued:

> ARB extensions are generated by individual hardware vendors and then
> accepted more broadly? Funny, I thought ARB extensions were hardware vendor
> extensions that were voted on by the board in order to 'bless them' as 'ARB
> extensions'...

Exactly -- I just expressed it as an informal process rather than the
formal voting. The threshold for approval was fairly low since there was
no need for everyone to implement them.

==
Andy V

#**103** 04-13-2005, 06:59 PM

I wrote:

>>>>First, the ARB embraced the extension mechanism before DirectX was
>>>>even Direct IX :-). As for liking it, you wouldn't want to embrace
>>>>something you didn't like, now would you? The extension mechanism
>>>>was used way back in OpenGL 1.0 days -- even Microsoft used it!

WTH replied:
>>
>>>Not in the OpenGL 1.0 days they didn't. Relative newcomers to
>>>OpenGL don't seem to understand the difference between extensions
>>>during (for example) 1992-1997.

I responded:

>>I'm certainly not a "relative newcomer to OpenGL" -- I was part of the
>>Digital team working on OpenGL before 1.0.
>>
>>I don't have access to a 1.0 Microsoft implementation, but the 1.1
>>version certainly supports extensions --
>>
>>GL_WIN_swap_hint GL_EXT_bgra GL_EXT_paletted_texture
>>
>>Note that this already uses the EXT code.
>
>
WTH continued:
> I'm unsure as to your purpose in telling me that 1.1 had extensions... Did
> someone claim something different? As for extensions prior to 1.1, did
> someone claim that nobody had extensions to OpenGL then?

I was responding to you -- "Not in the OpenGL 1.0 days they didn't." --
see quoted lines above.

WTH continued:

> ARB extensions are generated by individual hardware vendors and then
> accepted more broadly? Funny, I thought ARB extensions were hardware vendor
> extensions that were voted on by the board in order to 'bless them' as 'ARB
> extensions'...

Exactly -- I just expressed it as an informal process rather than the
formal voting. The threshold for approval was fairly low since there was
no need for everyone to implement them.

==
Andy V

#**104** 04-13-2005, 09:22 PM

Andy V <nobody@nowhere.net> loquated like no one had ever loquated before
with:

> I wrote:
>
>>>>> First, the ARB embraced the extension mechanism before DirectX was
>>>>> even Direct IX :-). As for liking it, you wouldn't want to embrace
>>>>> something you didn't like, now would you? The extension mechanism
>>>>> was used way back in OpenGL 1.0 days -- even Microsoft used it!
>
> WTH replied:
>>>
>>>> Not in the OpenGL 1.0 days they didn't. Relative newcomers to
>>>> OpenGL don't seem to understand the difference between extensions
>>>> during (for example) 1992-1997.
>
> I responded:
>
>>> I'm certainly not a "relative newcomer to OpenGL" -- I was part of
>>> the Digital team working on OpenGL before 1.0.
>>>
>>> I don't have access to a 1.0 Microsoft implementation, but the 1.1
>>> version certainly supports extensions --
>>>
>>> GL_WIN_swap_hint GL_EXT_bgra GL_EXT_paletted_texture
>>>
>>> Note that this already uses the EXT code.
>>
>>
> WTH continued:
>> I'm unsure as to your purpose in telling me that 1.1 had
>> extensions... Did someone claim something different? As for
>> extensions prior to 1.1, did someone claim that nobody had
>> extensions to OpenGL then?
>
> I was responding to you -- "Not in the OpenGL 1.0 days they didn't."
> -- see quoted lines above.

That still doesn't answer the question. You post about extensions existing
in the Microsoft implementation in 1.1, I said that they weren't used in
Microsoft's 1.0 implementation. How does your statement affect that one?

> WTH continued:
>
>> ARB extensions are generated by individual hardware vendors and then
>> accepted more broadly? Funny, I thought ARB extensions were
>> hardware vendor extensions that were voted on by the board in order
>> to 'bless them' as 'ARB extensions'...
>
> Exactly -- I just expressed it as an informal process rather than the
> formal voting. The threshold for approval was fairly low since there
> was no need for everyone to implement them.

The problem being that it IS a formal process to become an ARB extension.

WTH

#**105** 04-13-2005, 09:22 PM

Andy V <nobody@nowhere.net> loquated like no one had ever loquated before
with:

> I wrote:
>
>>>>> First, the ARB embraced the extension mechanism before DirectX was
>>>>> even Direct IX :-). As for liking it, you wouldn't want to embrace
>>>>> something you didn't like, now would you? The extension mechanism
>>>>> was used way back in OpenGL 1.0 days -- even Microsoft used it!
>
> WTH replied:
>>>
>>>> Not in the OpenGL 1.0 days they didn't. Relative newcomers to
>>>> OpenGL don't seem to understand the difference between extensions
>>>> during (for example) 1992-1997.
>
> I responded:
>
>>> I'm certainly not a "relative newcomer to OpenGL" -- I was part of
>>> the Digital team working on OpenGL before 1.0.
>>>
>>> I don't have access to a 1.0 Microsoft implementation, but the 1.1
>>> version certainly supports extensions --
>>>
>>> GL_WIN_swap_hint GL_EXT_bgra GL_EXT_paletted_texture
>>>
>>> Note that this already uses the EXT code.
>>
>>
> WTH continued:
>> I'm unsure as to your purpose in telling me that 1.1 had
>> extensions... Did someone claim something different? As for
>> extensions prior to 1.1, did someone claim that nobody had
>> extensions to OpenGL then?
>
> I was responding to you -- "Not in the OpenGL 1.0 days they didn't."
> -- see quoted lines above.

That still doesn't answer the question. You post about extensions existing
in the Microsoft implementation in 1.1, I said that they weren't used in
Microsoft's 1.0 implementation. How does your statement affect that one?

> WTH continued:
>
>> ARB extensions are generated by individual hardware vendors and then
>> accepted more broadly? Funny, I thought ARB extensions were
>> hardware vendor extensions that were voted on by the board in order
>> to 'bless them' as 'ARB extensions'...
>
> Exactly -- I just expressed it as an informal process rather than the
> formal voting. The threshold for approval was fairly low since there
> was no need for everyone to implement them.

The problem being that it IS a formal process to become an ARB extension.

WTH

#**106** 04-13-2005, 09:22 PM

Andy V <nobody@nowhere.net> loquated like no one had ever loquated before
with:

> I wrote:
>
>>>>> First, the ARB embraced the extension mechanism before DirectX was
>>>>> even Direct IX :-). As for liking it, you wouldn't want to embrace
>>>>> something you didn't like, now would you? The extension mechanism
>>>>> was used way back in OpenGL 1.0 days -- even Microsoft used it!
>
> WTH replied:
>>>
>>>> Not in the OpenGL 1.0 days they didn't. Relative newcomers to
>>>> OpenGL don't seem to understand the difference between extensions
>>>> during (for example) 1992-1997.
>
> I responded:
>
>>> I'm certainly not a "relative newcomer to OpenGL" -- I was part of
>>> the Digital team working on OpenGL before 1.0.
>>>
>>> I don't have access to a 1.0 Microsoft implementation, but the 1.1
>>> version certainly supports extensions --
>>>
>>> GL_WIN_swap_hint GL_EXT_bgra GL_EXT_paletted_texture
>>>
>>> Note that this already uses the EXT code.
>>
>>
> WTH continued:
>> I'm unsure as to your purpose in telling me that 1.1 had
>> extensions... Did someone claim something different? As for
>> extensions prior to 1.1, did someone claim that nobody had
>> extensions to OpenGL then?
>
> I was responding to you -- "Not in the OpenGL 1.0 days they didn't."
> -- see quoted lines above.

That still doesn't answer the question. You post about extensions existing
in the Microsoft implementation in 1.1, I said that they weren't used in
Microsoft's 1.0 implementation. How does your statement affect that one?

> WTH continued:
>
>> ARB extensions are generated by individual hardware vendors and then
>> accepted more broadly? Funny, I thought ARB extensions were
>> hardware vendor extensions that were voted on by the board in order
>> to 'bless them' as 'ARB extensions'...
>
> Exactly -- I just expressed it as an informal process rather than the
> formal voting. The threshold for approval was fairly low since there
> was no need for everyone to implement them.

The problem being that it IS a formal process to become an ARB extension.

WTH

#**107** 04-13-2005, 09:23 PM

Phil Frisbie, Jr. <phil@hawksoft.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated
before with:

> WTH wrote:
> <snip>
>> I respect, if disagree with, your opinion Phil.
>
> I totally agree with you WTH!
>
>> WTH

lol

#**108** 04-13-2005, 09:23 PM

Phil Frisbie, Jr. <phil@hawksoft.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated
before with:

> WTH wrote:
> <snip>
>> I respect, if disagree with, your opinion Phil.
>
> I totally agree with you WTH!
>
>> WTH

lol

#**109** 04-13-2005, 09:23 PM

Phil Frisbie, Jr. <phil@hawksoft.com> loquated like no one had ever loquated
before with:

> WTH wrote:
> <snip>
>> I respect, if disagree with, your opinion Phil.
>
> I totally agree with you WTH!
>
>> WTH

lol

#**110** 04-13-2005, 10:25 PM

WTH wrote:

> That still doesn't answer the question. You post about extensions existing
> in the Microsoft implementation in 1.1, I said that they weren't used in
> Microsoft's 1.0 implementation. How does your statement affect that one?

Consulting another source -- the OpenGL spec -- the appendices for 1.1
talk about the extensions that have been approved to move into the core
for 1.1.

> The problem being that it IS a formal process to become an ARB extension.

True, but not particularly important. ALL extensions come from the same
wellsprings of inspiration; some are adopted by multiple vendors, some
are approved by the ARB as either EXT or ARB. The extension mechanism
hasn't changed.

--
Andy V

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode