2009/4/17 Christopher Sean Morrison <[email protected]>:
> On Apr 17, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Daniel Roßberg wrote:
>
>> 1)
>> I would like to see the coreInterface on the same level as GE and GS.
>> This is because the core interface is an independent effort with
>> slightly different objective then GE.
>
> I find that sentiment very unexpected, actually, because the core
> interface API and implementation as it currently stands is nearly
> _exactly_ what I'd envisioned for the GE originally. The only thing
> I see different about the objective is perhaps that it is a subset of
> the eventual long-term goals. For the near-term, though, it's pretty
> much in-line with what the GE is supposed to be.
>
>> The core interface has not the universal demands as GE. For example
>> it has only rudimentary vector classes. This is because the
>> applications using the core interface usually have their own numerical
>> library. There is no need to introduce a new one.
>
> Again, that just makes it a subset. If the GE needs to pick up more
> extensive numerical facilities, they 'could' be added, but even that
> isn't on the plan. The basic goal right now is just geometry
> representation, basic manipulation (like name changes), and ray-tracing.
I know the GE from the brlcad.org wiki and the files in rt^3 only.
These are quite different from what I did in the core interface. But,
if you think that the core interface represents mainly your intention
for the GE let's "rename" coreInterface to GE and put all the
additional functionality (UUID etc.) into the GS.
However, everybody should know an important property of the Object
classes in the core interface: They represent copies of database
elements. I.e. changing an Object class does not change the database.
The Object has to be written back to do this (the call-back method
does this automatically). This behavior cannot be changed at
coreInterface level. But one could write object classes with
automatic write backs on a higher level (on top of the coreInterface).
>> 3)
>> I would not emphasize the GUI. I would prefer “APPS” for applications
>> as a first level directory name.
>
> Agreed. I would even prefer to keep the applications at the same
> src/ level, but I can just as easily concede putting them all into a
> subdirectory.
I meant src/APPS (there was apparently a misunderstanding here?).
Sziasztok,
Daniel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and
around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save
$200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco.
300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today.
Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p
_______________________________________________
BRL-CAD Developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
