Hello Gerrit,
Gerrit Voß wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 12:31 -0500, Carsten Neumann wrote:
>> this last one is a bit iffy as the parents field is actually the one in
>> the Attachment base class. Is the reuse of the parents field there
>> intentional [1]?
>
> yes, there is some magic with the parents happening, I'm looking into
> this, as this is where the assert violation comes from.
yes, that was the motivation for making the changes, it seemed since the
actual parent objects are not transmitted it did not make sense to
transmit the fields pointing to them. And the assertion triggered
because indices were still transmitted, but they also refer to the
uniform position on the server side, so should not be transmitted -
well, at least that was my thinking ;)
> I just wanted
> to collect all side effects before committing, at least I expect these
> changes to break the compat SHL version of the shaders. But I'm still
> verifying this though.
ouch, sorry, I had not considered those. Do you want me to back out r2478?
>> [1] a related question is why StateChunk derives from Attachment in the
>> first place? Does anyone remember?
>
> not sure anymore, I don't know if we ever used them as attachments.
hm, attachment adds two fields (parents, internal) that are mostly not
used for StateChunks, so it seems to make sense to change them to derive
from FieldContainer, or perhaps AttachmentContainer?
Cheers,
Carsten
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by
Make an app they can't live without
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Opensg-core mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-core
