On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Carsten Wartmann <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 03.08.2012 00:19, schrieb Thomas Dinges: >> Hey everyone, >> Today Campbell, Sergey and I discussed to drop frameserver. >> >> The reasoning is, that it's not really used (at all?). > > I always was aware of this, tried it some times. Always wanted to use it > someday. However all projects I did so far using Blender from > commandline to deliver images from a server (imagine the user > customnizes a product and gets it back as rendered image preview) used > to call Blender via command line and processes the returned by PHP... > > BTW: I just tried Frameserver and it still works. > >> Any objections to that? > > Is it really helpfull to remove? I would not remove it until it gives a > real advantage or the size of Blender would shrink a resonable amount. I > still think it can be usefull ;-) > > BTW2: It would be nice to return PNG or JPEG or whatever Blender offers > ;-) PPM is just too old. > > Best regards, > Carsten
Its helpful to remove because we shouldn't give users options that are not useful/tested/ready-for-production... When you use software and get the impression that some parts are not maintained - they crash or just fail, it doesn’t inspire confidence you want when relying on software for important projects. I had a look over the frameserver docs: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Source/Render/Frameserver ... but I'm still not convinced this is really worth keeping - its 8 bit channels. no alpha, no compression, that it can be setup to work with scripts over a network is clever but not generally useful IMHO. This could be put in a similar category as "Compiling blender as a python module" - its nifty and maybe very useful in some cases, but I'd prefer to disable for regular builds (if not remove). _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
