Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

bgfx module #240

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Sep 25, 2016
Merged

bgfx module #240

merged 9 commits into from
Sep 25, 2016

Conversation

code-disaster
Copy link
Contributor

Following up to http://forum.lwjgl.org/index.php?topic=6315.0, here's a PR to open my doings for your feedback.

I also moved all examples which require assets over to lwjgl3-demos.

All bgfx handles are implemented as "struct { uint16_t idx; }" and returned by value from bgfx_create_*() functions. It's been a pure coincidence that the Java struct_p bindings did (kind of) work with the first examples.

Handles are now simply mapped to short values in Java. This also greatly reduces overhead, at the expense of type safety.
Moving all bgfx tests requiring assets and JOML to lwjgl-demos.
Copy link
Member

@Spasi Spasi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Awesome, thanks!

A few things could be better, but nothing major. I'll do some fixes after merging, have a look at the next commits if interested.

@Spasi Spasi merged commit a2478ee into LWJGL:master Sep 25, 2016
@Spasi
Copy link
Member

Spasi commented Sep 29, 2016

The bgfx bindings are now complete, including documentation. There have been changes to several functions and structs, mostly because of missing AutoSize modifiers.

@kappaOne
Copy link
Member

kappaOne commented Sep 29, 2016

Nice work, can't wait to test out BGFX. There have been substantial changes (module system) and additions (BGFX) to LWJGL since the 3.0.0 release, a lot more than one would expect for a minor point release, maybe bump the next release version to 3.1.0 instead of 3.0.1?

@Spasi
Copy link
Member

Spasi commented Sep 29, 2016

maybe bump the next release version to 3.1 instead of 3.0.1?

Makes sense, yes.

@dustContributor
Copy link

I noticed only recently there were bgdx bindings, great work dude! 😄

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants