On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Andreas Beck wrote: > > Why not? If there's enough space in the gfx board memory then the > > offscreen buffer should be allocated there. > > And not be available for another application I start on the switched to > console?
Why not? Just make the bg app go back to use its own offscreen buffer that resides in normal memory. The rule should be: use as much gfx memory as possible. > > > That sounds a good idea. But then a) the memory-target must be extended > > > to "support" overlay resources > > Not a big deal, is it? Ideally a memory target shouldn't care at all about > > what it contains, it's just a framebuffer after all. > > Umm - an overlay does _not_ influence the underlying FB content (that's > what Sprites are all about when compared to BOBs). Thus the memtarget > would have to understand that is has to allocate extra memory for the > Sprite and store whatever you send there. Maybe I haven't explained myself very well: ONE offscreen buffer PER independent visible buffer, which means that the overlay would go in a buffer of its own, the sprites would just not be rendered at all and the standard display would get a buffer of its own as well. > > If there's any support for applications to get notified when they get > > "iconified", then the kgi case should be aliased to it, that is for the > > application it's actually the same thing. If there's no such support, then > > it's time to implement it :) > > You are mixing up GUI issues and fullscreen graphics issues here. Not really, I'm just generalizing and reusing semantics. > Yes there is such a mechanism for X. But it is totally X-specific and > cannot be generalized. If it _can't_, then I'm afraid the implementation sucks quite a bit then (no offence intended): the application doesn't have to care of whether it's in X or not, it just has to care of whether it's still visible or not. Fabio Alemagna
