My quick vote would be throwing the exception, but is like to hear from Steve and Kevin.
> On Oct 16, 2013, at 1:04 AM, Pavel Safrata <pavel.safr...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Hello, > it looks like we can't help releasing a not-fully-baked piece of API with > FX8. We've added bunch of new APIs for 3D and did our best to make them work > well. Unfortunately, there's been not enough time&priority to fine-tune their > behavior in 2D world. Right now I'm concerned about camera position in scene. > It is inherent in the 3D perspective camera that it has its specific position > in world, but the 2D parallel camera as we have it projects everything to the > XY plane basically by ignoring the Z coordinate, so the camera position > doesn't matter all that much. However, some of the newly added APIs depend on > it: > > 1. Near/far clip on camera. This obviously cannot work without knowing where > the camera is. Right now the parallel camera does no clipping though, so I > guess we are OK to go with it as a "known limitation". > > 2. PickResult on events which reports "intersectedDistance" between the > camera and the picked point. This is worse because we can't just "not > support" it - there will be some value and once somebody uses it we'll have a > backward compatibility issue. The state right now is that the camera is > (tentatively, by my arbitrary decision) at [0, 0, -1] and reports distances > from there (note that as the camera renders everything, for nodes "in front > of Z=-1" it reports negative distances). This may change when the camera > position is properly discussed and specified. > > Note that this post is *not* meant to discuss the camera position. Even if we > could find the answer quickly (which I doubt), it's most probably too late to > apply the change for FX8. > > So finally here is my question: do you think it's OK to solve this by keeping > the current behavior and documenting the "intersectedDistance" in a way that > for parallel camera the numbers are unspecified and subject to change in > future versions? Or would you prefer something more drastic like throwing an > UnsupportedOperationException (losing the possibility to compare the > distances)? > > Thanks, > Pavel
