[vos-d] Re: vip/userinterface
And so says Reed Hedges on 17/12/05 00:28... How about: * TerAngreal could include in its own site a home 3d world! This would be your private, local world. When you start TerAngreal, it could initially connect to this world. The contents of this world would be saved in a XOD file; if that file doesn't exist, it would create a minimal default that contains some text/image objects that welcome you, tell you what the default controlls are, etc. In the future, TerAngreal will have editing controls and you could modify the world. This private world could even contain 3d representations of all of the things TerAngreal uses Vobjects to store info in (e.g. your preferences are Vobjects, they could be editable in 3d)! h... and then if afterwards you want to get to this world, could the url for it perchance be about:config? best, Lalo Martins -- So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable. -- http://www.laranja.org/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GNU: never give up freedom http://www.gnu.org/ ___ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
Re: [vos-d] Re: vip/userinterface
Lalo Martins wrote: And so says Reed Hedges on 17/12/05 00:28... How about: * TerAngreal could include in its own site a home 3d world! This would be your private, local world. When you start TerAngreal, it could initially connect to this world. The contents of this world would be saved in a XOD file; if that file doesn't exist, it would create a minimal default that contains some text/image objects that welcome you, tell you what the default controlls are, etc. In the future, TerAngreal will have editing controls and you could modify the world. This private world could even contain 3d representations of all of the things TerAngreal uses Vobjects to store info in (e.g. your preferences are Vobjects, they could be editable in 3d)! Heh, that's a really cool idea... -sconzey ___ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
[vos-d] 3dui article, with review and (entirely free) rant
There was this article in The Tech Zone recently, linked from Slashdot, Where Computer Interfaces Are Going : 3D Beyond Games: http://www.thetechzone.com/?m=showid=465 It doesn't say much that people who hang around here don't know already; but it should have at least one point of information or a snack for thought for everyone. The author doesn't seem to have much of an opinion; the article basically amounts to a few instances of there is camp A and camp B, but the future will IMO be somewhere in between. Well duh. I even disagree in some points; I like webpages in angles, spreading them around me is better than tab browsing. But certainly a tool to align them with my view would be nice. In the end, he wonders why desktop UIs didn't evolve much in the last 20 years. Then I go well duh again. Of course mainstream reporters would be wary to even think this, but IMO the reason is pretty clear; we have a de-facto monopoly on UIs this days. If we were to switch our whole UI paradigm, there would be too big a risk that someone else would get it right, and the monopoly would take a severe hit. They don't want that. The status quo is comfortable. Besides, they're now struggling to get their software everywhere; and I think it will be a while before refrigerators and wristwatches have enough power for 3duis. Until then, we'll be stuck with the desktop metaphor on our powerful, 3d-capable PCs, just because. best, Lalo Martins -- So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable. -- http://www.laranja.org/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GNU: never give up freedom http://www.gnu.org/ ___ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
Re: [vos-d] Re: vip/userinterface
On Dec 17, 2005, at 6:32 AM, Lalo Martins wrote: h... and then if afterwards you want to get to this world, could the url for it perchance be about:config? Haha, ... No. It would simply be vip://localhost. Or since it would just be the same site, it wouldn't really need a URL. Well alternatively you could run a server always in the background as a system service. This would allow people to visit it even if you weren't there. One item on my omnivos wishlist is to put an icon in the taskbar that opened the object editor gui to let you change its configuration. (You'll notice that this idea of having a private home world is actually from the first chapter of Creating Interreality.) Reed ___ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
[vos-d] reducing number of libraries
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I got a big whack of coding done last night, which was very satisfying :-) Something that occurred to me, though, was the current tendency in VOS to over-modularize and have a proliferation of small libraries. While this makes sense for dynamically loaded plugins, it's annoying if you have to list 10 libraries on the link line to pull in all the features you need. Worse, certain libraries which register themselves with VOS arn't actually called by your app, and so won't generate link errors if they are missing. The wost offenders I'm thinking of right now are libvosapp (1 file) and the new import/export libaries (1 file/1 library for each of XOD, COD and ASE). Collapsing the import/export code into a single library is easy. Perhaps a libvosimpexp_3d could have the loader code for ASE, VRML and other supported formats. I was thinking, though, that the COD and XOD file formats are really are generic core feature and should probably be put into the main libvos. XOD, however, relies on the Property metaobject. Vosapp is also now a one file library, and would probably make a lot of sense to be merged into the main libvos. This also has a direct dependency on the Property metaobject, though. So, with the goal of reducing the number of link libraries involved in a typical VOS app, I'm thinking of merging COD, XOD, vosapp and metaobject_property into the main libvos. My main concern is over merging the property metaobject. It would add a bunch of new files to libvos. From a design standpoint, we've benefitted from having the property class be separate, so that none of the core code could treat property vobjects as special. By having the XOD and vosapp code be aware of properties and part of libvos, this would arguably break that encapsulation slightly. On the other hand, it could be fairly argued that the property metaobject is for all intents and purposes a core feature. At this point, it is essential to being able to interoperate with a VOS site (note that we didn't know this would be the case when we originally designed VOS, which was why it was put as a separate optional module back then.) I would say that the wall between them has held up long enough to prove the point, so it would make sense, and ultimately make everyones lives a bit easier, if the property metaboject were made part of the core libvos. Comments? [ Peter Amstutz ][ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ][ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [Lead Programmer][Interreality Project][Virtual Reality for the Internet] [ VOS: Next Generation Internet Communication][ http://interreality.org ] [ http://interreality.org/~tetron ][ pgpkey: pgpkeys.mit.edu 18C21DF7 ] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDpHPraeHUyhjCHfcRAuF4AKCfcYSE9CfeuHs/4VR1VP0/vwPjRQCghcr7 NC11Zf6MQnGL76scAEYW/uQ= =ciSh -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
Re: [vos-d] reducing number of libraries
I think I agree with you Peter, having them as a separate library doesn't make too much sense. You could perhaps use a separate namespace or something? Beyond reading the mailing lists, I've not been following VOS a huge amount recently.So to answer the question I guess you just have to ask if it is possible to write a useful VOS application that would not use the property metaobject? Regards Neil On 12/17/05, Peter Amstutz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-Hash: SHA1I got a big whack of coding done last night, which was very satisfying :-) Something that occurred to me, though, was the current tendency in VOS toover-modularize and have a proliferation of small libraries.While thismakes sense for dynamically loaded plugins, it's annoying if you have to list 10 libraries on the link line to pull in all the features you need.Worse, certain libraries which register themselves with VOS arn't actuallycalled by your app, and so won't generate link errors if they are missing. The wost offenders I'm thinking of right now are libvosapp (1 file) andthe new import/export libaries (1 file/1 library for each of XOD, COD andASE).Collapsing the import/export code into a single library is easy.Perhaps a libvosimpexp_3d could have the loader code for ASE, VRML and othersupported formats.I was thinking, though, that the COD and XOD fileformats are really are generic core feature and should probably be put into the main libvos.XOD, however, relies on the Property metaobject.Vosapp is also now a one file library, and would probably make a lot ofsense to be merged into the main libvos.This also has a direct dependency on the Property metaobject, though.So, with the goal of reducing the number of link libraries involved in atypical VOS app, I'm thinking of merging COD, XOD, vosapp andmetaobject_property into the main libvos. My main concern is over merging the property metaobject.It would add abunch of new files to libvos.From a design standpoint, we've benefittedfrom having the property class be separate, so that none of the core code could treat property vobjects as special.By having the XOD and vosappcode be aware of properties and part of libvos, this would arguably breakthat encapsulation slightly.On the other hand, it could be fairly argued that the property metaobject is for all intents and purposes a core feature.At this point, it isessential to being able to interoperate with a VOS site (note that wedidn't know this would be the case when we originally designed VOS, which was why it was put as a separate optional module back then.)I would say that the wall between them has held up long enough to provethe point, so it would make sense, and ultimately make everyones lives a bit easier, if the property metaboject were made part of the core libvos.Comments?[ Peter Amstutz ][ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ][ [EMAIL PROTECTED]][Lead Programmer][Interreality Project][Virtual Reality for the Internet][ VOS: Next Generation Internet Communication][ http://interreality.org ] [ http://interreality.org/~tetron ][ pgpkey:pgpkeys.mit.edu18C21DF7 ]-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDpHPraeHUyhjCHfcRAuF4AKCfcYSE9CfeuHs/4VR1VP0/vwPjRQCghcr7NC11Zf6MQnGL76scAEYW/uQ==ciSh-END PGP SIGNATURE-___vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.orghttp://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d ___ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
