Hello Konrad,
> I am presently working on a proposal for implementing x3d > importer for BRL-CAD. Given that I developed a vrml-g converter I > would like make this an extension of that project by putting both > converter within the-same folder maybe called web3d since they both > share many features. Sounds fine. Do they actually share a parser or other code? That would be stronger motivation for grouping them together, even besides x3d being an evolution of vrml. > Since the vrml-g parser may have not yet been fully reviewed, > I would like to know if there are some issues that have been observed > which I would need to note. I have not yet reviewed your work, but it will be looked at in detail with your application. When in doubt, read the HACKING file, make sure you’re very closing paying attention to the STYLE & STANDARDS section, and otherwise making your code conform. > I would also like to know if you would prefer I use an > external library, though I think It would lead to inclusion of so much > unused code within BRL-CAD, since most of the libraries are mostly > used for visualization of x3d files or editing scene-graphs. This is > why I think implementing a custom parser is a good idea. I would > really like to get some opinion on this project. You’re suggesting that because an external library will have features we don’t need that you should write your own? I don’t think it's adequate justification if that’s your only reason for wanting to implement a custom parser, no matter how much disk space would be used. It’d be trivial to delete portions related to visualization and scene graph editing. Writing an XML parser is not trivial. Really the only valid reason for implementing a library that is already readily available would be because they are license incompatible or yours will be substantially and non-subjectively better in some way. That usually means faster or less memory or new features. Just because something provides features X, Y, and Z when you only need feature X is not a strong position. > into consideration for GSoC application or am I require to work on > other patches within this period?. Not that I have any problem working > on a patch I just want to take the to time to develop a solid proposal > and fully analyze the project. Patches should be reviewed by you, tested, conforming, compile cleanly, and otherwise trivial for someone to review. If you know there’s something wrong or something that can be improved (without expanding the scope), then you should fix those issues. Realize it’ll never be perfect, but strive to make it perfect to the best of your abilities. If you already have a patch that you cannot improve upon, you should probably focus on your proposal. Cheers! Sean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ BRL-CAD Developer mailing list brlcad-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
