Antonio Bleile wrote: > Hi, >> Hi Marcus, all, >> >> On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 11:03 +0200, Marcus Lindblom wrote: >> >>> Just a small comment: Wouldn't it also make sense to make >>> imageContentChanged() protected or otherwise hidden from public (but not >>> >from Image), so that users don't call it unnecessarily, relying on >>> outdated docs/advice/memory. >> Up to this point we have been telling everyone to either call >> imageContentChanged or setImage (this one does not really make sense to >> me, >> beginEditCP(texChunk, TextureChunk::ImageFieldMask); >> endEditCP(texChunk, TextureChunk::ImageFieldMask); >> should be sufficient/better), so making it protected has the potential >> of breaking a lot of code. I'll add some doc comments though. >> > > I haven't followed the whole discussion, but you shall keep > in mind that for augmented reality applications you use > this method all the time. Everytime a new frame from the > camera is available, you call imageContentChanged. So hiding > it would look somewhat odd from this point of view.
My point is that it is the _image_ that changes, not the TextureChunk, so a user should only be concerned with updating the Image (and notifying changes on it), regardless if it is used in a TextureChunk or not. It's just that in our app, we have quite a strong separation of Images and TextureChunks and the fact that we need to keep track of these pairs has bitten us a few times. Cheers, /Marcus ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Opensg-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-users
