Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

webkit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 650 posts

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#311

Post by Rusky »

ioquatix wrote: post #207
brians wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vulkan isn't designed for adversarial input. The web language has to be. That alone is likely to require a ground-up redesign.

I'd argue that Vulkan IS designed for adversarial input. It deliberately provides a layer mechanism within the driver for validation of function calls. It's trivial to create your own layers and they can be used to validate EVERY entry point into the Vulkan driver.

Validation layers were created so drivers could remove checks to improve performance. And regardless, properly handling adversarial input is much more involved than just a validation layer.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#312

Post by MBCook »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #289
coldcode wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is Vulcan so magical that everyone in this thread thinks it is the only choice?

It has three things going for it: 1) It's currently the fastest (unlike DirectX) 2) It's not controlled by an OS company (unlike DirectX and Metal) 3) It reflects recent developer and hardware concerns (unlike OpenGL)

1) Compared to Metal or the low level thing MS has (don't they have one?)

2) Apple is proposing an open standard here, they're not making WebMetal

3) Why do you think Apple's proposal doesn't?

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#314

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #289
coldcode wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is Vulcan so magical that everyone in this thread thinks it is the only choice?

It has three things going for it: 1) It's currently the fastest (unlike DirectX) 2) It's not controlled by an OS company (unlike DirectX and Metal) 3) It reflects recent developer and hardware concerns (unlike OpenGL)

And does it make security assurances making it suitable to expose to the web?

I know a bit about DirectX and OpenGL, and I wouldn't expose a direct interface to either of them on the web. Does Vulcan make security and isolation assurances? If not then it is useless.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#315

Post by cfv »

I think it's fine, if they can manage to polyfill this fucker.

Otherwise it's just an incompatible wart like the getUserMedia implementation was for years, like webaudio still is, and like some of their latest hardware ideas have been.

Polyfill first, engine bloat later

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#316

Post by MBCook »

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #65
om2 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really a "just" or is it the right thing to do? Working on top of all the major APIs is the right thing for the web. We've discussed our proposal a lot with key players in this space (including other browsers, GPU vendors, relevant ISVs) and we're pretty sure a cross-API abstraction is the way to go. Some even want to build a form of cross-API abstraction at the native C/C++ level.

No disrespect intended. You've undoubtedly got a much better grasp of these APIs than I do! However... > Working on top of all the major APIs is the right thing for the web. A standard is the right thing for the web. Whether that's an abstraction or agreement upon an existing implementation remains to be seen.

You do realize you're commenting on a Web standard proposal right? This is in the document were Apple just said "here's what we're doing, deal with it", there are literally trying to work with the community on how it should look.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#317

Post by hrjet »

om2 wrote: post #94
surfmike wrote: post #71

How is this on security? Vulkan API is built on being able to modify command buffers and pass parameters by directly writing to memory, rather than the client/server model of OpenGL. I could see that being an issue with the sandboxed model of the browser. Disclaimer: haven't read the new Apple web 3D spec, just curious about others' opinions.

We haven't yet solved all the security problems, but we're aware of and thinking about them. We expect threadsafety, memory safety, data validation, and memory protection for the shader language to be the big issues.

Why are you proposing a new standard when you are still thinking about security?

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#318

Post by corysama »

snuxoll wrote: post #270
corysama wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concrete example: The PS4 dashboard is actually WebGL via Chromium ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIhtcUvi0BQ&t=55m25s ) I don't think PS4 supports OpenGL, DX or Vulkan. Sony has their own API.

Sony has historically supported a variant of OpenGL on the PS3 (in addition to their low level API) - I would be surprised if they don't have one for the PS4.

I worked on PS3. PSGL is the half-truth rumor that refuses to die. It was an experimental GLES1.0 with Nvidia's Cg shaders as an extension. I don't think any games actually used it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSGL

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#319

Post by MBCook »

int_19h wrote: post #237
acqq wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standard in question is still "one of the standards" (and a "me too" one, "the one to end all the previous standards" (1) as far as I see it) not the standard. Remember claims of Flash being the necessary thing on the mobile web, and efficient too? It turned out it was never true. Note there's still no web version of "pure" Vulkan. If it gets to be modified to be less "ridiculously low level" in its web variant,…

I don't think the XKCD reference is appropriate. Vulkan is trying to standardize low-level graphics API, which is a niche in which other existing contenders (notably, D3D 12 and Metal) are explicitly platform-specific, and don't even try to be standards outside of their ecosystem. Thus, it fills a useful niche. Yes, it doesn't have a web API. That's because there's no existing web API for low-level graphics of this n…

> Good design would dictate solving it at the lower level first, then building on that for the higher level.

I'm guessing the changes that may occur in the lower level aren't big enough to affect the upper level.

A lot of people in this discussion seem to just be operating under the assumption that the web API SHOULD be the same as the native API. But if you want a layer of indirection there for any reason (optimization, security, future proofing, whatever) then trying to be a one to one match to a lower level API may not be a good design decision.

There are one or two comments by the Apple people here on this point but not many from others: let's just assume the Vulcan is everywhere... would it still makes sense to use that (directly) as a web API? I'm not convinced it would.

Re: Apple proposes new web 3D graphics API

#320

Post by kalleboo »

sydd wrote: post #159
acqq wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by all vendors NVIDIA and ATI are hardly "all" vendors I care about. I'm personally not interested in the big desktop PCs. YMMV of course. But I'm personally very against "winner takes it all" and I'd really like some more universal web API, especially one that consumes less power on the iOS devices. Edit: the answer to the question below by sydd: I'm honestly and pragmatically interested in iOS and Apple devices,…

Then which vendors do you care about from the Microsoft ecosystem (which this thread is about)? Vulkan is supported by Nvidia, AMD and Intel, I think this covers >99% of the Windows landscape. Windows phone? or Xbox? Hololens?

Intel does not support Vulkan. They had some beta drivers for devs to test on, but no further plans
Post reply on HN