1
Feature requests / please make a .net binding for sfml
« on: July 11, 2008, 09:37:30 am »
I was wondering what the status is of the .net binding 
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
Audio / Plugable audio formats
« on: June 02, 2008, 04:33:59 pm »
No I don't have any formats available...
I understand your opinion. It makes sence... but you are restricting the user to use one kind of output system (rendering and sound I am talking about here)
But what when I want to give the end user the use of which system it uses (for example DirectX or OpenGL or DirectSound, OpenAL, OSS, ALSA or PulseAudio) This is not possible at the moment... But that is of course a whole diffrent discussion, so I don't go any further
I understand your opinion. It makes sence... but you are restricting the user to use one kind of output system (rendering and sound I am talking about here)
But what when I want to give the end user the use of which system it uses (for example DirectX or OpenGL or DirectSound, OpenAL, OSS, ALSA or PulseAudio) This is not possible at the moment... But that is of course a whole diffrent discussion, so I don't go any further
3
Audio / Plugable audio formats
« on: May 30, 2008, 04:06:40 pm »
I was looking in the roadmap and on the forum and I saw that there are plans to implement different audio formats and that is is not possible to include MP3 support.
I looked in the source code (very quickly) and I found out that file formats are somewhat hardcoded, that made me think :idea:
What if it is possible to plug audio formats (seperate libraries) into the audio library? It will make it possible to get MP3 support (for the people who can use it) and it will make it easier to add more formats, even formats that are not used very much. And all this is possible without getting a lot of dependencies that are not used by a lot of people...
At the moment I have no idea how this should look like and where to put it, but I can take a look this weekend and give you an idea...
The same principle is possible with different image formats and even render systems...
When it is done well, the system will not get more complex for the user, because the functionality stays the same, only when he wants to have other audio support, he adds the plugin...
What do you think of this idea?
I looked in the source code (very quickly) and I found out that file formats are somewhat hardcoded, that made me think :idea:
What if it is possible to plug audio formats (seperate libraries) into the audio library? It will make it possible to get MP3 support (for the people who can use it) and it will make it easier to add more formats, even formats that are not used very much. And all this is possible without getting a lot of dependencies that are not used by a lot of people...
At the moment I have no idea how this should look like and where to put it, but I can take a look this weekend and give you an idea...
The same principle is possible with different image formats and even render systems...
When it is done well, the system will not get more complex for the user, because the functionality stays the same, only when he wants to have other audio support, he adds the plugin...
What do you think of this idea?
4
Feature requests / please make a .net binding for sfml
« on: May 28, 2008, 09:28:58 am »
ok, good to know.
I am happy to test it under Mono (Linux) to see how it works
I am happy to test it under Mono (Linux) to see how it works
5
Feature requests / please make a .net binding for sfml
« on: May 24, 2008, 06:23:44 pm »
It would be very usefull to have .net bindings... That is why I have decided to give it a try (I don't promise anything and when it is ready, but I just give it a try)
I think I should take the following steps:
- Create an API that is compatible with SFML
- Use CSFML to bind the correct methods to the correct functions of SFML (assuming that CSFML is 100% compatible with SFML)
- Replace some methods with .NET specific implementation to improve speed
The reason to use CSFML is that it is not possible to wrap the C++ classes directly in C#. And because I don't want to reinvent the wheel, I use CSFML
Are there things that I should think about while working on this?
(I don't promise anything and when it is ready, but I just give it a try)I think I should take the following steps:
- Create an API that is compatible with SFML
- Use CSFML to bind the correct methods to the correct functions of SFML (assuming that CSFML is 100% compatible with SFML)
- Replace some methods with .NET specific implementation to improve speed
The reason to use CSFML is that it is not possible to wrap the C++ classes directly in C#. And because I don't want to reinvent the wheel, I use CSFML
Are there things that I should think about while working on this?
6
Window / include files
« on: November 29, 2007, 02:50:48 pm »
That makes sense... Although when you are using a nice IDE it shouldn't be a problem to have the headers in a different place. But everybody is doing it the way they like it. (I put all my headers in the include dir instead of the source).
The .hpp is an extension I don't like at all, but that is my personal taste But when I want to use this lib (not sure if I am able to use it for something 
I have to live with it (or write a little script which changes all the names 
)
BTW. it is very nice to see a library like SDL which is completely OOP
The .hpp is an extension I don't like at all, but that is my personal taste
But when I want to use this lib (not sure if I am able to use it for something I have to live with it (or write a little script which changes all the names )BTW. it is very nice to see a library like SDL which is completely OOP
7
Window / include files
« on: November 29, 2007, 12:36:42 pm »
Could you please tell the public what the reason is for having two different header files? I would like to know the answer too...
Another thing I like to know is why are you using the extension .hpp instead of .h. .hpp seams like Pre Processor Header...
Another thing I like to know is why are you using the extension .hpp instead of .h. .hpp seams like Pre Processor Header...
Pages: [1]