From: Marcus Sundberg <mackan@stacken.kth.se>
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 16:35:02 +0000

Re: SYNC mode should go

Jim Ursetto wrote:
> 
> At 01:31 AM on 1998 September 10, Marcus Sundberg did write:
> 
> > Actually we should REALLY go all the way and introduce framebuffer
> > lock/unlock calls into libggi. I've suggested this before as it would
> > eliminate the problem with accessing accel engine/framebuffer at the
> > same time.
> >
> > And there are other reasons for this too:
> > DirectX depends on a lock/unlock system. If libggi don't have this we'd
> > have to use a mansync hack here, and in that case we can forget about
> > porting to win32 right now as noone would ever use it.
> 
> Offhand (and this may be completely irrelevant): I seem to remember
> someone (probably Kendall Bennett) a long time ago bringing up the issue
> of locking under DirectX and how the Windows way of doing it was a total
> kludge and had programmers crying from the stress of dealing with it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Windows _implementation_ was a kludge,
but I don't see how the locking itself could be a kludge.
You call lock() before you access the framebuffer, and when you're
done you call release() - plain and simple and solves a lot of problems.

//Marcus
-- 
-------------------------------+------------------------------------
        Marcus Sundberg        | http://www.stacken.kth.se/~mackan/
 Royal Institute of Technology |       Phone: +46 707 295404
       Stockholm, Sweden       |   E-Mail: mackan@stacken.kth.se