“Armin Steinhoff” <A-Steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:3A633F78.71FC3E10@web_.de…
Igor Kovalenko wrote:
[ … ]
Armin, I sure need an interpreter to understand you.
Yes Igor, … your ignorance is actually unbeatable.
Inability to understand you does not equal ignorance. But calling people
‘ignorant’ just because they don’t understand you due to the way you express
yourself is equal to arrogance.
My initial question was:
“just a thought … since there is a QT embedded - that means Qt
isn’t completely bound to X - could it be possible to port Qt to a
lower layer interface of Photon?”
Qt was never completely bound to X and not because of the existense of Qt
Embedded. Windows version exists for much longer.
If you are able to make any useful and constructive statements …
please, do it. I haven’t ask for personal attacks and insults like:
Armin, you’re full of knowledge in some areas but very naive in others.
That is applicable to me too. And all other people. Don’t know why do you
see an insult here. Are you claiming you’re competent in all possible areas?
Your approach in pushing down others and your judgements about
others sounds for me completely naive.
Arguing is always ‘pushing others down’ in some sense. You can’t really
prove someone is wrong and say you didn’t ‘push him down’, can you?.
Unfortunately, whenever I disagree with you for some reason you take it as a
personal insult. I will probably adopt a policy of not commenting, since
such discussions rarely bring anything useful anyway.
My ‘naive’ idea is to provide:
- a world class object oriented grahical libray for PHOTON
- open up a pool of a huge number of recompileable Qt applcations
for PHOTON
- attracting Qt developers to use PHOTON
- open up the possibility to build multi platform applications
(PHOTON, LINUX, MS, Macintosh …)
- a.s.o
That kind of idea would be good for a marketing guy. For me the above
statements have no value since you’ve failed to show how exactly you going
to achive those goals.
The approach you proposed does not give us anything except yet another GUI
system (QtEmbedded), in addition to Photon and X and I don’t see how that is
going to attract Qt developers to Photon.
What do you need DDK for? Why not just use Pg library which is a
direct
interface to Photon drivers?
Wrong … read the online docs of the Pg lib:
“The Photon graphics functions build a buffer of draw commands. The
application sends these commands to ->the Photon Manager, which in
turn sends them to the graphics driver. The graphics driver then
renders the commands on the screen.”
Ever heard about bypass mode? Try reading the docs further…
The Pg lib isn’t a direct driver interface … that’s the reason why
off screen drawing is consuming so much CPU power.
[ clipped away lots of if/could/would nonsense ]
The Qt Embedded has 2 differences from classic one: its own low level
graphics library
No … the embedded library is completely compatible to the classic
one.
When did I say they are not compatible? And which exactly if/could/would is
nonsense? You strip whole paragraphs and just label them ‘nonsense’ without
bothering to asnwer them. And you call me ‘ignorant’? What if I strip your
whole posting, call it ‘nonsense’ and call you ‘ignorant’? Would it be a
good argument?
That means Qt/Embedded ported e.g. to the Pg/Ph libs will
provide an identical graphical interface as provided by Qt/Classic.
Here are 2 architectures:
-
Qt Classic
Xlib <-> QtWidgetSet <-> AnyXWindowManager
-
QtEmbedded
direct_frambuffer_access_routines <-> QtWidgetSet <-> QtWindowManager
Which part of the architecture (2) is useful for Photon port?
What I’m trying to tell is that porting Qt/Embedded
_in_a_way_which_would_allow_it_to_play_nicely_with_Photon would mean porting
QtWidgetSet. Which is exactly the same thing as porting Qt classic.
Otherwise (your proposal) we get architecture 3:
Photon_drivers <-> QtWidgetSet <-> QtWindowManager
That is a standalone windowing system, which could at best work within
Photon in fullscreen mode like Quake does now with Glide. Photon window
manager and most other Photon applications would not fit there because you
don’t want to involve Photon server which they need.
What I think is needed is following:
Photon_drivers <-> Photon_server <-> Photon_Pg/Ph_API <-> QtWidgetSet <->
PhotonWindowManager
That of course means some overhead. But that overhead is already in Photon
and we think it is fast enough. That overhead (message passing) is in whole
QNX system. Don’t we like message passing anymore?
Any useful ideas or comments from others ?
I quit this discussion. Perhaps somebody who has more patience will
continue.
