Doug Twilleager wrote: > Some of the forms of extensibility that we are considering for 1.4 allow > for this kind of operation.
It is very good to hear that (and part about ability to play with native layer for extensibility). Thanks for clarifications. > When you start talking about making it generic, things get out of hand > pretty quickly. State sorting, for instance, pretty much goes out the > window. There is no way to know exactly what each node will do, so you > lose a whole bunch of optimization possibilities. So, we are looking to > add specific points of extensibility that preserve the optimizations we > can perform on "core" nodes. I understand it and such nodes would certainly inhibit some possible optimalizations. But this would cause problems only for given branch of graph. I think that most people would accept small performance penalty for having more possibilities - especially if this penalty is paid only when these extras are used. I'm afraid to think how much work 1.4 will require... Good luck, Artur P.S. If we only could get light-weight objects into java and use them in java3d, this would be really a perfect 3d API... =========================================================================== To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
