Would the developers ever consider a complete implementation of the OpenGL standard (or OpenGL ES) under MorphOS?
If so, which variant?
The most recent also offer OpenCL functionality.

> The most recent also offer OpenCL functionality.

Clover (OpenCL over Mesa) needs Gallium3D. The last time I read from MorphOS Team members talking about Gallium3D they objected to using it.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTI1OA
http://steckdenis.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/hello-world/
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2011-April/007107.html
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/clover/ *

* Edit: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~steckdenis/clover/ (new repository)
Edit2: http://people.freedesktop.org/~steckdenis/clover/ (documentation)

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 11.10.2011 - 20:21 ]

Why in the world would they use Mesa?
The last time I check the Mesa API was not a licensed OpenGL implementation, rather it just used the OpenGL command syntax.
I really meant a full, compatible, licensed implementation of OpenGL.

> Why in the world would they use Mesa?

Because it's an open source and full OpenGL implementation.

> The last time I check the Mesa API was not a licensed OpenGL implementation

Mesa doesn't have the license for the 'OpenGL' name. However:

"Mesa is a 3-D graphics library with an API which is very similar to that of OpenGL. To the extent that Mesa utilizes the OpenGL command syntax or state machine, it is being used with authorization from SGI. While Mesa is not a licensed OpenGL implementation, it is currently being tested with the OpenGL conformance tests. Despite these technical/legal terms, you may find Mesa to be a valid alternative to OpenGL. Most applications written for OpenGL can use Mesa instead without changing the source code."
http://www.opengl.org/documentation/implementations/#mesa

"There is an implementation of GL that is Open Source and it is called Mesa3D http://www.mesa3d.org
It doesn't have the license to call itself OpenGL, but it does follow the spec very well."
http://www.opengl.org/wiki/FAQ#Is_OpenGL_Open_Source.3F

(Btw, APIs are not implementations but specifications. Actual source codes are implementations.)

> rather it just used the OpenGL command syntax.

Yes, and its commands are supposed to do what the specification's commands with the same name do. That's exactly what's usually called an implementation of a specification (in this case of OpenGL 2.1 with several extensions from 3 and 4).

> I really meant a full, compatible, licensed implementation of OpenGL.

Like for instance? SGI's free but horribly outdated sample implementation of OpenGL 1.2? Or do you seriously consider the MorphOS Team to write its own full OpenGL (ES) implementation and obtain an 'OpenGL' name license from Khronos Group or from SGI?

No, older OpenGL implementation are not really an option.
And OpenGL ES isn't that great an option.
Also, I'm not too worried about OpenCL. I would be nice, but its not vital.
Does Mesa require Gallium3D or is it only Clover?

> No, older OpenGL implementation are not really an option.

Thought so. What "full, compatible, licensed implementation of OpenGL" do you have in mind then?

> Does Mesa require Gallium3D or is it only Clover?

It might be that recent Mesa versions (starting from Mesa 7.5) require Gallium3D but I'm not sure about that, might be optional.

Looking over Mesa 7.5, Gallium appears to be tightly integrated.

>What "full, compatible, licensed implementation of OpenGL" do you have in mind then?

Good question. Time to look.

> Good question. Time to look.

So you don't have one in mind yet? Anyway, good luck finding one that meets the criteria you mentioned and could make its way into MorphOS without the MorphOS Team ponying up thousands and thousands of dollars/euros for a license.

Isn't it curious that OpenGL isn't a truly open standard at all?

BTW - The more I look at Mesa3D the more I'm beginning to think Gallium might not be essential.

[ Edited by Jim 04.05.2011 - 23:41 ]

> Isn't it curious that OpenGL isn't a truly open standard at all?

As Mesa is best evidence of, the only thing about OpenGL that isn't open (also in the sense of free) is the use of the 'OpenGL' trademark. But even that can be free of charge under certain circumstances:

"Trademark License. for new licensees who want to use the OpenGL trademark and logo and claim conformance. This license is available free of charge if you are developing open source implementations on open source platforms. For closed source licenses or licenses on proprietary platforms, a charge will be associated with a trademark license."
http://www.sgi.com/products/software/opengl/license.html

MorphOS being a closed source platform means the trademark license couldn't be free of charge. But honestly, do you really think we'd need the 'OpenGL' trademark for MorphOS? I certainly don't, so Mesa would be perfectly fine for MorphOS. Of course, the MorphOS Team could as well write its own full and perfectly legal OpenGL implementation for MorphOS, but why should they do that if there's the full and perfectly legal and free to use and heavily developed OpenGL implementation that is Mesa? (That's assuming Mesa doesn't require Gallium3D, or the MorphOS Team doesn't object any longer to using Gallium3D, or they use a Mesa version prior to 7.5)

Mesa with it's own hw drivers or Gallium/Nouveau would be very nice indeed.

Update:

> OpenGL 2.1 with several extensions from 3 and 4

As of February 9th, Mesa implements OpenGL 3.0:

http://www.mesa3d.org/relnotes-8.0.html
http://www.mesa3d.org/relnotes-8.0.1.html

That's beginning to look even more attractive.
Has anyone figured out if this requires Gallium?

Jim,
Quote:

OpenGL ES 2.0 might be a sensible target though, being the basis of WebGL.

iOS devices and the PS3 use OpenGL ES 2.0 so it's not that bad.

Kamel

OpenGl ES 2.0 would be great. Almost all applications from the mobile world are using Open Gl ES 1.x - 2.0.
But as long as the MorphOS Team insists of doing their own OpenGl Api and drivers instead of using Mesa, EGL, Gallium and Nouveau,
there won't be any 2.0 support in the next few years.

[ Edited by eliot 22.03.2012 - 07:11 ]

Hey, what about full DirectX 11 support ???





Seriously though, about OpenGL ES, I'd say tinygl is already quite close to that, implementing more things (such as immediate mode & display lists, which should be avoided, but both aid in porting some "very legacy" code) but also missing some things (such as all fixed point functionality and egl)

Also missing VBO support, but I don't think that's compulsory for ES1.

ES2 support would of course be MUCH harder to achieve.

Quote:
ES1 and ES2 are mostly incompatible with each other (well, "for anything more complex than clearing the screen") so supporting ES2.0 won't give us automatically ES1.X.

But of course someone can always write an ES1 wrapper for ES2, which should be WAY easier than writing ES2 support to begin with (actually I have written something quite a bit like such a wrapper)

But then again, as I said, we (almost) have ES1 already anyway.

Why can't be used directly opengl 2.0?. It has to be mesa?

> Why can't be used directly opengl 2.0?

See posting #4.
(Short answer, condensed from that posting: Because OpenGL is just a specification, thus doesn't have source code.)

> It has to be mesa?

If you know alternatives that could be used by MorphOS then just mention them.

nevermind

[ Edited by raistlin77it 22.03.2012 - 22:18 ]