OpenGL into morphic ala lumiere?

More than likely, this is way too advanced for moi, but I spent about an
hour rummaging through the Lumiere code for Pharo and just couldn't grok
how the OpenGL rendering is directed to a morph instead of to raw
coordinates on the main window. Is there some special property of Pharo
that allows this kind of thing, or is there some relatively simple way
in Squeak to direct OGL drawing to a morphic surface/canvas/thingie so
it renders inside the boundaries of the morph when moved?


Or does my question even make sense?


Thanks.

Lawson

On 3/25/2010 8:25 AM, Lawson English wrote:
> More than likely, this is way too advanced for moi, but I spent about an
> hour rummaging through the Lumiere code for Pharo and just couldn't grok
> how the OpenGL rendering is directed to a morph instead of to raw
> coordinates on the main window. Is there some special property of Pharo
> that allows this kind of thing, or is there some relatively simple way
> in Squeak to direct OGL drawing to a morphic surface/canvas/thingie so
> it renders inside the boundaries of the morph when moved?

There is absolutely nothing to it. All you need is something like here:

MyMorph>>drawOn: aCanvas

        "--- initialize opengl ---"
        ogl ifNil:[
                ogl := OpenGL newIn: self bounds.
                ogl ifNil:[^super drawOn: aCanvas].
        ] ifNotNil:[
                ogl bufferRect: self bounds.
        ].

        "--- when not rendering to Display, draw last captured frame ---"
        aCanvas form == Display ifFalse:[
                ^aCanvas drawImage: ogl screenShot at: bounds origin.
        ].

        "--- otherwise do normal scene rendering ---"
        ^self renderScene: ogl.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Andreas Raab wrote: [...]
 
That WAS easy. Is there a simple way to implement the c-like syntax you
did for Cobalt? I'm working on recreating the HE tutorial series  and
many people will balk at the with:with:with:with:   syntax, I'm afraid

Lawson

On 4/1/2010 4:19 PM, Lawson English wrote:
There is no easy way to recreate that syntax. If you really want it
you'll have to go back to an old Croquet or Cobalt image.

But I very much doubt that anyone will really care. Since you're not
going to make OpenGL calls all the time, you can't avoid introducing
keyword syntax. As soon as you introduce keyword AND non-keyword syntax
you're making it harder for new users (which I assume is your audience).
They'll be confused when they can use keyword and when they can use
non-keyword syntax, whether that will make any difference (Python
'named' arguments are optional) etc. They won't find that ever discussed
in any book on Smalltalk they might look at, they won't understand if
that is Smalltalk or some DSL and so on.

Simple consistency is best. Explain the mapping and trust in the smarts
of people - as long as they understand the rules they'll be able to
follow them.

Cheers,
   - Andreas