On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 23:34 +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote: > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 06:03:03PM +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 16:08 +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote: > > > > > We gave up on clutter because of its performance. Not only did it > > > render slowly but creating a new clutter item was O(number of > > > already existing items). > > > > it's a scene graph: what did you expect? :-p > > Hey, if I had known what to expect I wouldn't have been profiling > things! :-p ;-) But seriously, I was surprised to see O(n) insert > performance. Are scene graphs so new/esoteric that no-one has done > better? the O(n) insertion is purely an internal detail of ClutterGroup: we kind of guarantee that the order of insertion maps the order of allocation and paint for that particular container implementation. nothing prevents you from implementing your own Container that has O(1) insertion, or O(n log n), or whatever kind of insertion you need. but, again: if you're just displaying models then a full scene graph, with per-node event handling and animation, it's not what you want. ciao, Emmanuele. -- W: http://www.emmanuelebassi.name B: http://blogs.gnome.org/ebassi _______________________________________________ gtk-list mailing list gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
