On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Mathias Fröhlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, the semantics of the current CullSettings api suggest your change. > But no, that needlessly copies all values over and copies back what is in the > mask. > Not nice IMO :)
The copies are done to replicate the effect of stack of settings, where local settings don't affect the state of parental operations. One could go the route of implementing a stack of settings, there will still be copies going on, and the code would complicate that classes. > Anyway, from the scenegraph perspective I wonder why the cull visitor has > such > a mask. I would rather try to remove that maks from the cull settings and > move that into the camera. Then it is clear, that the cull settings are > set/inherited from the tree structure of the scenegraph. > Also the cull visitor does not need that value IMO. It a matter of expediency and history, reusing the CullSettings class in various roles rather than creating different classes that store the same parameters. The history comes down to how the OSG has evolved with new capabilities being dovetailed into existing classes or collaborating with different classes whilest trying to minimize the amount of existing user code that might break as consequence of this evolution. This does lead to some code not always being perfect from all perspectiveness. I will go ahead an merge the change, but since we have the old code in place still we can always revert amend as required. Robert. _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
