On Jan 25, 2008 10:00 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Thanks for that. I thought it would be easier to derive from existing zip > reader, but evidently that wasn't the way to do it as I then ended up > creating two "zip" reader instances as the proxy construction and the class > definition for the base zip reader are in the cpp file. I've fixed my problem > by simply deriving from ReaderWriter instead. > > This brings me to a more general question about readers. > > Is there a reason why some employ the .h .cpp conventions, whilst others roll > them all into one - either .h or .cpp ? > > Thanks again for the info.
It all depends upon on the needs of the code you are writing, if its a small little plugin then just wrap it all into one .cpp if its a big beast like OpenFlight or Collada plugins then do something appropriate for that type of code base. Robert. _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
