David Megginson writes: > >Norman Vine writes: > > > FYI, The old format allowed for this just as easily. It is >basically > > a wavefront materials file that is very successful in >several of the > > 'best' modeling packages available. > >No it didn't -- the old format was a token reader, and each token knew >how many other tokens had to be consumed after it.
Argh the format isn't broken Our parser just wasn't as 'capable' as it could/should have been. The basic format is well proven in a myriad of systems and for all its worth could probably of been parsed into a 'properties tree' with only several lines of code. IMHO there was no compelling reason to change the file format other then 'you wanted to' and in so doing you have broken compatibility with ancillary projects ! >I think it's unacceptable that >people update the C++ code on Tuesday and then discover that the base >package on Wednesday no longer works with it (and vice-versa). I think it is unacceptable to make incompatible changes to core features without a 'group discussion' - but ... you already knew and ignored that ..... FYI I HATE doing this but I am investigating having 'both' the new and the 'old' materials files work with FGFS and out of deference to 'progress' I will have the system default to using the XML format if materials.xml is found and the older format if it isn't so as to keep compatibility with other programs, and ancillary projects that are expecting the older style. Anyway I think that the time has come where FlightGear should adopt a more formal development model where the 'goals' and the 'methods' of obtaining said goals are presented to a 'committee' for approval. This will slow development a bit at first as we grow accustomed to the 'procedure' but will lead to a much more 'robust' and 'trustworthy' framework on which to develop. I think that this will lead to the kind of 'stability' that is required in order for FGFS to be adopted as a 'base' for some of the more sophisticated projects. Note I am not proposing that we try to get our development processed ISO approved but that is exactly what most serious simulators need to be before they are considered in some circles and would make a good 'model' for us to strive towards Cheers Norman _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
