Hi Marcus,
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 16:50 +0200, Marcus Lindblom wrote:
>
> Wouldn't you have to go pretty low-level in order to make osgInit() call
> the OS's dynamic linker to resolve things? I've never heard of anything
> like it being done ever before. (If that is what is being suggested.)
Ah, I see. No, that's not what we're talking about.
The run-time linker can be configured to resolve undefined symbols
either when the program is loaded, or when it is used for the first time
(by using an indirect jump into a resolver stub). Using the second
method you can start a program with unresolved symbols, load the
necessary .sos before they are used and be fine with it.
> I think that giving up type-safe linking is quite a bad thing in
> general. Either you have load-linking, or you don't (and in that case,
> work around it via reflection or common plugin interfaces.)
I tend to agree. It would be throwing away one of the advantages of C++
over other languages.
> It seems like we have to define what kind of code we want to write and
> how that code is supposed to link to OpenSG. I don't really see
> reflection/dynamic stuff replacing all my hard-linked OpenSG code
> without performance going down the drain, so what problem are you really
> trying to solve here? :)
Good point.
> On reflection & class loading in general:
>
...
>
> Making OpenSG bindable to any script language and then making dynamic
> stuff from such a language (python/java/xml/etc) is probably a better
> way to get what we want.
>
> Making good script bindings to java is not easy either, as it is still a
> statically compiled language (which is nice, since you get some support
> by the compiler or the IDE (Eclipse)).
>
> Totally dynamic stuff (python) has it's place, but is not something that
> I would imagine scales to big software.) Also, the more dynamic you make
> things, the more performance you lose.
>
> My plan for our system is to have C++ in the bottom for performance
> critical stuff, a java (or maybe python) binding for GUI stuff,
> BeanShell/Groovy or more python for fully dynamic scripting, coupled
> with some xml to set up scenes with all of our objects. Given a
> java/python binding, everything else falls out quite nicely.
Sounds like a good plan to me. I can't judge the importance of Java in
this are very well, so I'm not sure how much pain I'd be willing to go
through to get Java bindings (sounds like it would be a lot).
Python on the other hand has great extensibility, and Allen has made big
steps towards Python bindings. I don't know about Ruby and Lua, which
seem to be used in hte game community quite a bit.
Yours
Dirk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Opensg-users mailing list
Opensg-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-users
