well still waiting for some eyes on this approach of mine.. On 7/16/13, check.nyah <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Looking at the way the push routine has been implemented I think I > could follow a similar process with implementing a pull; so here is my > current working plan(model) "looked at the xpush implementation too". > > Currently Writing the ged_pull() with the following as subroutines: > > *Wrote a pull_leaf routine which builds a linked list based on the > object given to be pulled; taking note of leaf nodes present on the > list (so as to be able to do a bn_mat_inverse when moving > in the revere direction); this process sets the matrices of these > non-leaf nodes to identity after comparing them with what is currently > stored. However a non-leaf node I assume which is not identity has not > been pushed so a pull( since a pull cannot be performed on an unpushed > object) so return error message and frees up list(still thinking > whether to ignore this node and continue or not ?)[need some eyes > here.] > > *Working on a loop which From the tail of the list[leaf] moves upwards > towards the head performing an inverse matrix operation until I > encounter another leaf(whose matrix tranformation is now used for > inverse operation) after originally setting the matrix transformation > of the old_leaf to identity and continues performing the matrix > inverse storing them up the node till its reaches then head. > [CURRENTLY WORKING ON THIS NOW..] > > * Later on I move down the linked list from the head making all these > new changes(new matrix transformations) to database; which is similar > to the do_identize() and identitize() loops seen in the push routine. > > * free up build linked list( as in the push ) > > * then returns status (GED_ERROR or GED_OK) > > This is the approach I am currently following in implementing the pull > routine( which opposes the push). I wish to know if this method is ok( > Since I think this will cut through the process of dealing with > individual primitives when accessing each node from the database.)? if > not any suggestions or amendments to make to this method? Since i know > the matrix transformations for any path are cummulatively stored at > the leaves of that path; which could easily be recovered by performing > an inverse. > > > Thanks for the assistance. :) > > Cheers! > > Nyah >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds. Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ BRL-CAD Developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
