[SDL] Feature Query System (Was: Some multithreaded improvement to the event queue...)

Bob Pendleton bob at pendleton.com
Fri Sep 23 09:51:28 PDT 2005


On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 08:39 +0200, Olof Bjarnason wrote:
> May I hazard that the lack of a robust query / control system is a
> prime reason for AAA titles not using SDL on the PC platform? I mean
> SDL is a lot easier to code than DirectX, so why wouldn't developers
> use it?
> 
> /Olof

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

There are lots of reasons not to use SDL. The lack of a query system
isn't something I have ever heard mentioned. Poor support for random
Joysticks and the latest sound hardware along with poor vendor (MS)
support for OpenGL *are* reasons I have heard.

		Bob Pendleton

> 
> On 9/21/05, Antonio SJ Musumeci <asm3072 at njit.edu> wrote:
> > You give up control but that does not mean that the library can't offer
> > the developer control over it's actions. SDL has several layers which
> > could allow the user to override functionally at runtime... but simply
> > does not provide the mechanism to do so. As for "try and see"... if a
> > query system existed to begin with and a platform did not support
> > probing... try and see can be used to simulate probing. Save state, try
> > and see, restore state. Anything which isnt consistent document and
> > offer the ability to query the feature. The whole
> > SDL_WM_ToggleFullScreen in Linux vs everywhere else thing. Instead of
> > just having it fail (which tells you practically nothing) when not
> > supported... offer the ability to find out. You may not want to try
> > it... but simply offer the ability later on or not depending of it's
> > availability. Similarly with drivers... you currently cant just offer
> > the user a choice of drivers to pick from... nor can you simply add your
> > own at run time.
> > 
> > Steven Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > This sounds like a conflict between embedded development mind sets
> > > and PC development mind sets.
> > >
> > > I think the problem is that with a library like SDL, a certain
> > > measure of control (in the nature of what you discuss) is lost.  This
> > > is because it is an abstraction library, which hides the details of
> > > the underlying mechanisms.  By using the library you are "giving up
> > > control" to the library.  If you want to have "total control" you
> > > need to do things directly (ie, with the hardware, or with target
> > > specific libraries), and not worry about a library that attempts to
> > > have your code write once, compile everywhere,  Where each and every
> > > target will have different control issues, that the library has been
> > > designed to hide.
> > >
> > > This problem sounds more like a conflict of philosophy.  I can see
> > > nothing wrong with a "try and see" approach.  This is ultimately what
> > >  you do when you probe hardware anyway.  The difference here is that
> > > the activating of the code, and the probing of its
> > > functionality/existence, is combined into a single operation.
> > >
> > > My 2c. Steven
> > >
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > SDL mailing list
> > SDL at libsdl.org
> > http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SDL mailing list
> SDL at libsdl.org
> http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl
> 
-- 
+--------------------------------------+
+ Bob Pendleton: writer and programmer +
+ email: Bob at Pendleton.com             +
+ web: www.GameProgrammer.com          +
+ www.Wise2Food.com                    +
+ nutrient info on 7,000+ common foods +
+--------------------------------------+





More information about the SDL mailing list