nanogui: Re: NanoX version 0.5
Subject:
RE: NanoX version 0.5
From:
Greg Haerr ####@####.####
Date:
18 May 1999 23:21:45 -0000
Message-Id: <01BEA152.B69C7650.greg@censoft.com>
> I don't see why. It's simpler and easier to have a different driver for
> each type of frame buffer, and it's better to be able to only compile in
> the one that you need.
>
> > No, because the nanoX driver encapsulates all the needed functionality
> > for all the (currently mini-x) programs above it, by writing one
> > driver, you can port all your neat programs to another operating system.
I suggested this for the very reason that you thought it a good idea
to toss ReadPixel. Maintaining multiple drivers for similar architectures is more
of a job than it seems.
Greg
