Message: previous - next
Month: September 2013

Re: Re: [trinity-devel] My opinion on Trinity project quality

From: Martin Gräßlin <mgraesslin@...>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 13:06 +0200
On Thursday 19 September 2013 13:20:01 Aleksey Midenkov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Aleksey Midenkov <midenok@...> 
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Timothy Pearson
> > 
> >> No, the programmers were/are not worse, but the project goals apparently
> >> changed.  Simply compare the size of the Qt3 vs Qt4 library for an
> >> example
> >> of this!  Qt4 decided that they wanted to be a compositor instead of
> >> passing compositing off to the native display server, and most of the
> >> performance problems and drawing limitations stem from this decision.
> > 
> > Hmm, interesting news. Ok, that's a good reason to stay with Qt3. I
> > don't like how Qt4 performs either.
> Hmm, I've just read of a little bit opposite. On Xorg Qt4 uses XRender
> for composing by default.
That's for rendering, not for "compositing" as Tim talked about. It's a 
different can of worms.
> This is done on server side and this engine
> is very slow. If to switch Qt4 to raster engine, then performance goes
> to normal.
And that's why raster engine is the default since 4.8 and xrender is no longer 
present in 5.x. None of these improvements is present in Qt 3 btw, as Qt 3 
only supports the slow XRender implementation.