[Public WebGL] WebGL2 and no mapBuffer/mapBufferRange

Florian Bösch [email protected]
Fri Mar 6 14:13:52 PST 2015


On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Zhenyao Mo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 1) We can't expose INVALIDATE_BUFFER bit
>
Please elaborate.


> 2) We can't expose FLUSH bit with mapping implementations (we can only
> allow it in copying implementations), therefore also not
> glFlushMappedBufferRange() for mapping implementations.
>
Please elaborate.


> You lose perf in copying implementation, lose functionality in mapping
> implementation.  In my opinion, defining it as an extension is the
> clearest way to expose the subset of them.

I'm strictly against recasting core functionality as an extension. It's
unprecedented and in my opinion not user friendly. I'm also strictly
against dropping core functionality. Even if it's inconvenient not to drop
it. I'm against it because it means you're not producing an ES 3.0
compatible implementation. That creates all sorts of issues, among them
issues for people who transpile to it, and issues for what "a khronos
ratification" means for an implementation as well as issues for what you'll
do in future revisions of the specification.

It's easy to see how such a bifurcation of the specifications will lead to
WebGL being a completely distinct variant of GL from either Desktop GL and
ES.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://khronos.org/pipermail/public_webgl_khronos.org/attachments/20150306/330f501c/attachment.html>


More information about the public_webgl mailing list