[GtkGLExt] [Fwd: Re: Module proposal: GtkGLExt for GNOME 2.22 (fwd)]

[Rizzen <rizzen darkstar co za>]

Send reply to only one person.

--- Begin Message ---

• From: Rizzen <rizzen darkstar co za>
• To: Stéphane Brunet <stbru teksavvy com>
• Subject: Re: [GtkGLExt] Module proposal: GtkGLExt for GNOME 2.22 (fwd)
• Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:05:43 +0200

I know that I am extremely quiet, hovering in the background.

I believe GtkGLExt should become part of either GTK+ (preferred) or
Gnome (but will do too) to gain greater exposure. I can say there are
many like me out there in that, when we look for a library to use we
look for completeness and if it does having missing features that should
be there we skip it. Now what is a GUI (desktop) library with all the 2D
widgets, but without 3D (OpenGL) widgets these days? How many
applications these days rely on 3D graphics? So many I can't count them.
You may say GTK+ does has 3D widgets in the form of GLdrawarea, but to
me and many others it is not as simple to use as GtkGLExt. People just
don't have the time to waste on complicated APIs just to get a simple
task done (allocate me a piece of the window so some OpenGL is
displayed). Not being part of any large GUI library makes GtkGLExt an
orphan, lonely in the world of GUI libraries. An orphan many simply
don't know about or just glance over it as it is not part of a library
(either GTK+ or Gnome) they are using.

If GTK+ don't want GtkGLExt, and someone at Gnome would like to adopt
the orphan GtkGLExt, I all for it for it means greater exposure to
GtkGLExt. I not worried about the big Gnome library collection, after
all, not everyone uses the entire library collection to produce an
application. I for one don't. At least I know if I want to use some of
the features of Gnome in a later project, the libraries are there
waiting for me. Even if it is not maintained on a regular basis it will
still be carried along with the rest of the libraries. One benefit that
does come to mind, if there is an underlying change in GTK+ libraries
that GtkGLExt depends on, it will be discovered much quicker and
additional help may be available to update GtkGLExt.

Well that is my short comment.

Rizzen

Stéphane Brunet wrote:
> Eric Jonas a écrit :
>   
>>> I have to disagree with you. By integrating it to Gnome, it will "lock" 
>>> it to the Gnome desktop in the mind of many people. If they are not 
>>> using Gnome, they would tend to think that the OpenGL extension is only 
>>> available on (or working with) a proper installation of Gnome desktop. 
>>>     
>>>       
>> I disagree that this would be a major problem; most of the users I
>> interact with are aware that software labeled as "gnome" does not
>> require one to use the whole gnome ball of wax. Even the gtk mailing
>> list archives  and bugtracker are hosted on gnome.org. 
>>
>>   
>>     
> I am sure that the user you interact with are more geeky than the 
> average person. ;-)
>   
>> Moreso, by having it be a Gnome module, it might increase the widespread
>> adoption of the extension. 
>>
>>   
>>     
> One could even more say that from integrating it to GTK+
>   
>> Finally, holy crap people, it's currently _unmaintained_. If we don't
>> let -someone- pick it up, it'll suffer bitrot. The c++ wrapper I use
>> (gtkglextmm) already appears to be missing from the latest ubuntu
>> repositories.
>>
>>   
>>     
> Please watch your language! Your are in a public place here.
>
> It has been maintained by a "missed in action" person for a few years 
> before Timothy Shead took back the whole project. It survived well and I 
> am sure someone will take over this task really soon.
>
> There are still some issues concerning the "packaging" process but the 
> core of gtkglext can be kept almost "as-is". The wrappers have to be 
> updated. As for the Python wrapper, I have been invovlved in providing 
> the Windows binary distribution for more than a year now.
>   
>>> I don't understand what prevent us from integrating OpenGL support 
>>> directly to GTK.
>>>     
>>>       
>> I heard rumors that gtk+ was having maintainer issues, and are already
>> pretty hosed. On top of that, there's this bug: 
>>
>> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119189
>>   
>>     
> Yes, I am aware of it for about a year now. As for the rumors about 
> GTK+, I don't know them and I don't take rumors into account in my 
> decision process.
>   
>> Towards the end, they decided they didn't really care for the gtkglext
>> design, and someone had offered to pursue gldrawarea. It then appears to
>> have been dropped on the floor. 
>>   
>>     
> My personal feeling about gldrawarea is that it is too restrictive. 
> That's why gtkglext was so popular. It would be a pity to put gldrawarea 
> as the OpenGL extension in GTK+ rather than gtkglext.
> The reason they didn't care is maybe because they are too busy with 
> other parts of GTK ? Wherever gtkglext will be integrated (or not), a 
> specific maintainer will still be needed.
>
> Regards,
>
> Stéphane
> _______________________________________________
> gtkglext-list mailing list
> gtkglext-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkglext-list
>
>   

--- End Message ---