On 02/02/2008, Michael van der Gulik <mikevdg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 2, 2008 2:03 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Why keeping 2D and 3D apart? What i like in Opengl, that it can handle
> > both 2D/3D drawing primitives, so there is no need in using another
> > library to make your content 3D aware.
>
>
> Because 2-D widgets are composed of lines and pixels placed on a 2-D canvas.
> A button is a 2-D rectangle with a border and some black text.
>
> 3-D widgets on the other hand might be rendered... well... in 3-D. For
> example, you could make a button that is a very nice curved 3-D object that
> casts a slight shadow on the area of the window just below it, with actual
> 3-D embossed text, and has just enough subtle specular reflection added to
> it that you could swear you could see your own face in it. This is the sort
> of CPU-wasting stuff that would make Steve Jobs want to lick his screen.
>
> 2-D widgets and 3-D widgets in this example would need different
> implementations.
>

Yes, this would require issuing different commands to canvas, but not
require to have separate rendering pipelines.

-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.