Re: [clutter] 2.5D?

On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 10:24 +0100, Christophe Dehais wrote:
>
> I agree on that.
> depth is confusing because it feels like just a "renaming" of a
> functionality of OpenGL.
> While discovering Clutter, I first asked myself if depth meant
> something like a "z-order" in a stack (it can indeed be use like that)
> or if it was the z coordinate of the actor (which it is).
> I think the abstraction argument doesn't quite hold because in any
> case one has to understand the 3D aspect of the clutter stage when
> using rotation.
> Full 3D is one of the key advantages of using OpenGL under the hood,
> so I would more clearly expose that.
>

Clutter isn't stopping you from dropping into full OpenGL if you really
want to.

Clutter is not some general abstraction to Open GL - one of the major
aims of Clutter is to provide a very simple API to the developer that he
can create very nice 'blingy' (urg I hate that word) applications
without needing to know anything at all about OpenGL nor it
complexity's. The more 3D stuff we add, the more this becomes not the
case. The kind of applications we expect to be created are very '2.5D'

Another key advantage of GL is its performance, the fact it also does
3D, is, in Clutters case, a nice extra but not the pure focus.

  == Matthew

-- 
To unsubscribe send a mail to clutter+unsubscribe@o-hand.com