[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Public WebGL] Should texSubImage2D accept null like texImage2D does?



On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Gregg Tavares (å) <gman@google.com> wrote:
I think it comes down to emulating OpenGL or not. glValidateProgram excepts 0 will generate INVALID_VALUE therefore it's not unreasonable for WebGL to do the same. I don't expect any programs use validateProgram but the idea is that OpenGL programs should be portable to WebGL with as few changes as possible.

The API is already different from OpenGL here. An ArrayBuffer is nothing like a raw pointer to memory that you'd use in OpenGL. The language bindings are also just fundamentally different, and "emulating" OpenGL here gives an API which is inconsistent both with itself and the rest of the platform.

(There are other good reasons to try to keep WebGL from deviating unnecessarily from OpenGL, but the language binding level is just inherently different; C and JS are at opposite ends of the language spectrum.)

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Ben Vanik <benvanik@google.com> wrote:
May I suggest that while modifying the signatures of these methodsÂin future versions that they be widened to support taking ArrayBuffer as well? For those of us using XHR/File APIs that return ArrayBuffers or pass around ArrayBuffers in our code it's often a waste to have to wrap everything in a Uint8Array/etc before calling these methods - especially when the implementations don't need the type from the view.

This should be discussed in a separate thread to not derail this discussion, but there's no waste in creating a Uint8Array from an ArrayBuffer; it's just a thin view and doesn't create a deep copy. (I believe this was discussed on the list recently.)

--
Glenn Maynard