cairo support

Hi all

should we push rome or the cairo graphics package?
I kno wthat they are not at the same level of abstarction but I prefer  
to ask.
Or should rome be based on the cairo graphics package?

Stef

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

CONTENTS DELETED

2009/9/25 Marco Schmidt <[hidden email]>:
> I would choose the lower level of abstraction - cairo. Did there
> exists an portable OpenVG implementation? This would be too a possible
> alternative to wrap with Alien.
>
Yes, it would be cool to have portable OpenVG implementation, because the plugin
i made ready to work with it. But afaik there is no such implementation yet.
ShivaVG is using OpenGL, which makes it well portable on all major
platforms. Alas, its not fully covers the 1.0 spec,
and its not very fast :(

P.S. Same as you, i'm not in favor for being dependant on higher-level
libraries such as cairo or rome.


--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

ask igor
he got something :)


On Sep 25, 2009, at 10:15 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote:


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

You can read brief description at wiki page
on
http://www.squeaksource.com/OpenVG

2009/9/25 Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]>:


--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> should we push rome or the cairo graphics package?
> I kno wthat they are not at the same level of abstarction but I prefer
> to ask.
> Or should rome be based on the cairo graphics package?

I'm in favor of pushing the CairoGraphics package and porting Rome to it.

--
Damien Cassou
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

"Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them
popular by not having them." James Iry

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

ok cool!

On Sep 27, 2009, at 9:49 AM, Damien Cassou wrote:


_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Damien Cassou wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Stéphane Ducasse
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> should we push rome or the cairo graphics package?
>> I kno wthat they are not at the same level of abstarction but I prefer
>> to ask.
>> Or should rome be based on the cairo graphics package?
>
> I'm in favor of pushing the CairoGraphics package and porting Rome to it.

You should really first understand what Rome is.

First:
Rome is not complete and far from perfect in its current state.

Second:
Rome is a graphics context/canvas level abstraction of vector graphics,
with subclasses supplying implementations for different backends. This
way the same client code would work on Cairo, OpenVG, but also simple
BitBlt (with some less quality). Just look at the current subclasses of
RomeCanvas.
If we "only" support cairo graphics we give up that freedom and
applications would need to implement the portability layer for different
backends.

Rome is also already a relatively low level abstraction.

Michael

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Michael Rueger wrote:
>> I'm in favor of pushing the CairoGraphics package and porting Rome to it.

Despite (or on top of? ;-) ) my arguments in the previous mail that
would be the way to go either way :-)

My argument basically is that we should avoid "trapping" people into the
Cairo back-end. It is neither perfect nor the best for every application.

Michael

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Michael Rueger <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Michael Rueger wrote:
>>> I'm in favor of pushing the CairoGraphics package and porting Rome to it.
>
> Despite (or on top of? ;-) ) my arguments in the previous mail that
> would be the way to go either way :-)
>
> My argument basically is that we should avoid "trapping" people into the
> Cairo back-end. It is neither perfect nor the best for every application.

Ok, we have to keep the possibility to change the backend. However,
for the Cairo backend, I think we should use a generic Smalltalk
binding for Cairo and not create a new one. What do you think?

--
Damien Cassou
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st

"Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them
popular by not having them." James Iry

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

Damien Cassou wrote:
+1

Michael

_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project