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

Re: [Public WebGL] ARB_texture_storage for WebGL

I think that would be strange: WebGL 2 mainly compatible with WebGL 1, i.e. sensible code written against WebGL 1 spec should work the same way for WebGL2 context. Thus it makes more sense to have only WebGL 2 implementation and always return WebGL 2 context, even if WebGL 1 was requested. This approach works for desktop OpenGL and OpenGL ES, I see no reason why it can't work for WebGL.
PS. Perhaps, it would be right to make WebGL 2 *completely* upward compatible with WebGL 1.

08.09.2015, 18:42, "Christophe Riccio" <christophe.riccio@unity3d.com>:
My understanding as well is that WebGL 1 and WebGL 2 are going to remains separated implementations in WebGL browsers and that because of ecosystem reality. the WebGL 2.0 ecosystem is only going to include a subset of the WebGL 1 ecosystem. So if there is a measurable benefit for texture storage and considering that it's a software extensions only which is supported by most desktop and mobile (included ES2 implementation) platforms, I think it should be considered.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Ashley Gullen <ashley@scirra.com> wrote:
I think the main reason against making a WebGL 1 extension for something that is supported in WebGL 2 is because WebGL 2 implementations are already in the works, so this will happen eventually anyway.

On 8 September 2015 at 15:57, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:
The texStorage family of calls are introduced by these extensions:

The reason these calls don't exist in WebGL 1 is because they are not core functionality in OpenGL ES 2.0, and because so far nobody asked for them or wrote an extension specification for them.

You could draft a WebGL extension specification to mirror EXT_texture_storage so that these calls could be implemented for WebGL 1.0. However UA maintainers have often cited resource shortage as a reason to strike down extension implementation, instead rather focusing on WebGL 2.0. I personally don't believe that to be a good argument against some functionality. If the problem is resource shortage, the solution isn't doing less, it's to acquire more resources.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Кирилл Дмитренко <dmikis@yandex-team.ru> wrote:


I'm digging into ANGLE and how it works. Recently I've read in the WebGL Insights book that ANGLE doesn't really like when an application
changes dimensions or mipmapping of a texture. If I understand it correctly, that is due to the fact that D3D doesn't allow to change texture parameters once it's created. Also, there is a note in the book that texStorage* calls allow ANGLE to overcome this problem (in other words, handle textures more efficiently). But why don't we have those calls as an extension to WebGL, i.e. ARB_texture_storage?

Kirill Dmitrenko
Yandex Maps Team

You are currently subscribed to public_webgl@khronos.org.
To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo@khronos.org with
the following command in the body of your email:
unsubscribe public_webgl

Kirill Dmitrenko
Yandex Maps Team