[Public WebGL] Size of GL_FLOAT

[Vladimir Vukicevic]

On 1/12/2010 4:34 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Chris Marrin <cma...@ 
> <mailto:cma...@>> wrote:
>
>
>     On Jan 12, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
>
>     > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Chris Marrin <cma...@
>     <mailto:cma...@>> wrote:
>     >
>     > On Jan 12, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote:
>     >
>     > > ...We already specify the size of each type in the WebGLArray.
>     That constrains what the vertex arrays can contain, which
>     constrains the underlying OpenGL (or other) implementation. If a
>     WebGLFloatArray contains 32 bit floats in every implementation and
>     the VBO is sent in and defined as a buffer of FLOAT type, then
>     WebGL constrains the type of FLOAT to be 32 bits.
>     > >
>     > > This is one way of looking at it: that the WebGL spec implies
>     constraints on the OpenGL implementation underneath, for example
>     that it supports 32-bit floats as input data. Another way of
>     looking at it is that WebGL conforms to the typedefs of the OpenGL
>     implementation on the platform.
>     > >
>     > > So wouldn't it be best to remove sizeInBytes() and replace it
>     with constants for each supported WebGLArray type? This might be
>     best done with a constant in each WebGLArray subtype
>     (WebGLFloatArray.SIZE, WebGLUnsignedByteArray.SIZE, etc.).
>     > >
>     > > Realistically I think that every OpenGL implementation out
>     there will support the primitive data types currently in the WebGL
>     spec, so it's OK with me if we make this change. I would suggest a
>     name like WebGLFloatArray.ELEMENT_SIZE to be more clear about the
>     meaning.
>     >
>     > ELEMENT_SIZE makes me thing of elements in an array, not bytes.
>     Maybe we should just go with SIZE_IN_BYTES (as wordy as that is),
>     or BYTE_SIZE? :-)
>     >
>     > I don't like SIZE_IN_BYTES or BYTE_SIZE because we already have
>     a method called byteLength(). We should have an indication that
>     we're talking about the size of one element in the array.
>
>
> I misspoke; it's an attribute, not a method.
>
>     Speaking of which, I'd feel better if this were lengthInBytes or
>     something. Right now it sounds like its describing the length of a
>     byte!
>
>
> There's currently naming consistency between the byteOffset and 
> byteLength attributes on WebGLArray, and the byteLength attribute on 
> WebGLArrayBuffer. Personally I like these better than offsetInBytes 
> and lengthInBytes. Other opinions?
>
>     >
>     > What about ELEMENT_SIZE_IN_BYTES? ELEMENT_BYTE_SIZE?
>
>     BYTES_PER_ELEMENT?
>
>
> This sounds good.

BYTES_PER_ELEMENT sounds good to me as well.  On each of the typed array 
types, correct?  (WebGLFloatArray.BYTES_PER_ELEMENT == 4?)

    - Vlad

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://khronos.org/pipermail/public_webgl_khronos.org/attachments/20100112/df9e5bc3/attachment.html>