To actually make the multiprocess communication work, we'll need to
reroute the task creation to the pipeline or the compositor. But this
works as a first step.
r? @jdm
Source-Repo: https://github.com/servo/servo
Source-Revision: 1764267379a00b96a1df89f3917299a0c6fd325c
The idea here is to land this before making images and canvas IPC-safe,
because this will shake out bugs relating to the shared memory. There
are currently test timeouts that are preventing multiprocess images and
canvas from landing, and I believe those are due to the inefficiency of
sending large amounts of data in the unoptimized builds we test with. By
moving to shared memory, this should drastically reduce the number of
copies and `serde` serialization.
Under the hood, this uses Mach OOL messages on Mac and temporary
memory-mapped files on Linux.
r? @jdm
Source-Repo: https://github.com/servo/servo
Source-Revision: ed1b6a3513e7546b580693f554a081bc0c7c478a
This improves the encapsulation and consistency in our WebGL
implementation.
Also allows to implement new methods such as `getShaderSource()`.
It will also allow us to use `delete()` in the destructors of them (note
that we will probably want to keep track of them from the context before).
Some concerns:
**Trait method repetition**:
I'm aware that the traits `WebGL{Buffer,Renderbuffer,Framebuffer,Texture}Helpers` are basically the same, but `delete()` and `id()` methods are everywhere. I've thought something like:
```rust
pub trait WebGLIdentifiable {
type WebGLId; // id is sometimes i32 (see WebGLUniformLocation)
fn id(&self) -> Self::WebGLId;
}
pub trait WebGLBindable {
fn bind(&self);
}
pub trait WebGLDeletable {
fn delete(&self);
}
```
But I'd want to know your opinion first.
**`renderer` repetition**:
Thought of moving the field: `renderer: Sender<CanvasMsg>` to `WebGLObject`, but I think it makes it way more complicated to read, and also a bit unnecessary, at least IMO (`WebGLObject` will never interact with the field directly). It would also mean that all `WebGLObject`s should have one, which is true at this moment, but maybe not with WebGL 2, for example.
Source-Repo: https://github.com/servo/servo
Source-Revision: 0f8095b950dd144497919cfea65a1f154ed3ae9a
Sorry for not doing it yesterday, I couldn't.
cc @metajack @SimonSapin
Source-Repo: https://github.com/servo/servo
Source-Revision: 4ebb95ccd8e034007eacb447a054919ef4af2bf7
It seems @hyowon uploaded her canvas shadow patch faster than me; I've handled the color dependency a bit different, this way `gfx_traits` is not required by the script module.
Source-Repo: https://github.com/servo/servo
Source-Revision: c8c7bd900dde73d4fddafea8239f44440f1c863b
The first step of the implementation for shadows in canvas.
r? @nox @jdm
cc @yichoi
Source-Repo: https://github.com/servo/servo
Source-Revision: f163f2bf0d32861ea20470d405bb517ed5b09e84
This commit implements:
* WebGLFramebuffer
* WebGLRenderbuffer
* WebGLTexture
And adds the following methods to `WebGLRenderingContext`:
* create{Texture,Framebuffer,Renderbuffer}
* bind{Texture,Framebuffer,Renderbuffer}
* destroy{Buffer,Texture,Framebuffer,Renderbuffer}
Fixes:
* WebGLUniform location shouldn't inherit from WebGLObject.
Known Issues:
* WebGL objects have to be destroyed on drop, we may want to keep a reference to the context, or maybe a clone of the renderer to achieve this
Also refactors a huge part of the current implementation, to allow
failing on creation of different WebGL objects.
Blocked on https://github.com/servo/gleam/pull/22
A reftest for most of the added functionality is not doable right now,
we need a few more functions in order to upload a texture, for example.
Source-Repo: https://github.com/servo/servo
Source-Revision: e09c555a41b0803388e54013ac8885fb789a0fa6
This implements the `canvas`, `drawingBufferHeight` and `drawingBufferWidth` getters to `WebGLRenderingContext`, and an initial version of `getParameter`.
r? @jdm or @nox?
Source-Repo: https://github.com/servo/servo
Source-Revision: 042737793b1995ad93dc093ea12ec986b99e64b8
r? @jdm
I couldn't add the `getContextAttributes` method since `CodegenRust`
doesn't know how to return a dictionary value, I'll take a look at it ASAP.
I think the helper functions can return directly the renderer, since they're used just for that, but I wanted to hear your opinions about this.
By the way I'm interested in adding more serious tests for WebGL, and I think the [khronos conformance suit](https://github.com/KhronosGroup/WebGL/tree/master/conformance-suites/1.0.3) should be the best option.
Should I try to integrate it in wpt, or making a `tests/webgl` directory (or similar) inside the servo tree? (Maybe this question should be for @Ms2ger)
Source-Repo: https://github.com/servo/servo
Source-Revision: 0de09b936e5e37c15b7865157a98ad78b1077659
I've done a bit of job to get this done. Right now readback is still used, but we have a `LayerId` -> `CanvasRenderer` map on the paint task, that we can use to get rid of that.
I'd want review, to see if this is a good approach (I know it's not the initial `CanvasId` -> renderer approach, but it's pretty similar, since a canvas involves a `PaintLayer`).
I had to do a bit of refactoring to avoid cyclic dependencies between canvas and gfx. I'd want you to review them too.
It's mergeable and doesn't break any tests :P
Some of my main concerns:
* Does the canvas render really need to be behind an `Arc<Mutex<T>>`?
* I can't clone a `NativeSurface` right now (that's why the `SendNativeSurface()` msg is unimplemented in the WebGL task). It should be easy to add that to rust-layers, supposing the caller is responsible to mark it as non-leaking, any reason to not do it?
cc @jdm @pcwalton
Source-Repo: https://github.com/servo/servo
Source-Revision: ad53e95080144485e74cd9b9d48ce75e20de4e36
