Re: [HOpenGL] My thoughts/problem while coding

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Jason Dagit wrote:

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 8:17 AM, L Corbijn wrote:

...

Hello,

In my not so recent coding for the OpenGL library I’ve met a few difficulties and questions. The most important one is that the current implementation for textures is not scalable. It relies on the assumption that there are only certain amount of texture targets for each dimension (only one for 1D and 3D). As OpenGL 3.0 adds a few targets this would introduce some extra targets this would lead to breaking the api. It's probably best to introduce it in the 'summer release', though earlier might also be possible in some opt in way (extra import?). My proposal for the new implementation of texture target is at the bottom of this email, as I wasn't sure whether or not attachments would work with the mailing list.

Looks like no one has responded to your message yet.

Thank you for pointing this out. It does indeed sound like a problem with the current implementation.

I'll have to think about this a bit more. Do I understand you correctly that you would like there to be a more general interface for marshaling data in the OpenGL binding?

Thanks! Jason

Indeed I would like to have a bit more done on marshalling (especially after typing names like marshalGetFramebufferAttachmentPName). So I've been tinkering for some time about how to implementing it. Adding some marshaling functions would probably lead to adding class GLMarshal m where marshal :: m -> GLenum with for example the utility functions marshal1 :: GLMarshal m => (GLenum -> e) -> m -> e marshal2 :: GLMarshal m => (a -> GLenum -> e) -> a -> m -> e and of course we want to unmarshal some datatypes class GLMarshal m => GLUnmarshal m where unmarshal :: GLenum -> m Now having these two typeclasses might make life a bit earsier, but is also caused me to think about using type classes at some other points in HOpenGL. Though that last type class makes it all more difficult than expected. First of the ideas is to change some datatype, e.g. GetPName, into a type class, and refactor the constructors into (more) appropriate datatypes. You could group them for extra functionality or neater datatypes, some possibilities are 1 by target (Lighting, Shaders, etc.). 2 by return type (int1, int4, uint1, etc.), and then redefine GetInteger1 and others to only work on the correct enums. 3 by version of deprecation, this makes it easier to exclude unwanted constructors. 4 by source (GL-spec, or extension)... Though such splitting might be an improvement it has it's hard to do with datatypes that need unmarshaling. For those types there is the problem that the compiler can't chose from all the unmarshaling functions the one that can unmarhsal the returned value, without some help. Selecting an unmarshal function for the compiler (by explicitly specifying the type) is not wanted in some cases, so it should be done at runtime which comes possibly with some performance loss. Luckily unmarshalling is done far less than marshalling. Now the more radical/crazy ideas. Using option 4 on more datatypes could make making extensions to the OpenGL base package a whole lot easier. The setup would be like: class GLMarshal b => BufferTarget b where ... with default implementation data SpecBufferTarget = ArrayBuffer | ... instance BufferTarget SpecBufferTarget where ... and for adding the extension for uniformbuffer objects (of course with a lot of extra functions) data UniformExtBufferTarget = UniformBuffer instance BufferTarget UniformExtBufferTargett where ... It would reduce the work for adding an extension from editing the OpenGL package to making an extra module in which extra functions and datatypes (instances of the correct typeclass) are added. Though I think it's nice to make it possible to add extensions, there are serious problems with it. Most importantly there is the problem with unmarshalling again, as the function that does the unmarshaling must have the possibility to unmarshal datatypes from which it does not even know existence at compile time. The only sollution to this problem I've come up with is to register the extra marshal functions at some point (preferably start up). This would introduce not only a way to register these extensions, but also either an IO type or an unsafePerformIO to unmarshal function. Third and last idea, extend the GLMarshal to class GLMarshal s t | s -> t where marshal :: s -> t or class GLMarshal s where type Target s :: * marshal :: s -> Target s Then it would be possible to implement marshaling functions for buffer objects (and possibly more types) and therefore make utility functions more general. The disadvantage to this idea (or ideas like this) is that it needs some language extensions to work. Lars