Hi Carsten, On 13.02.2017 23:28, Carsten Neumann wrote:
> On 2017-01-18 04:58, Johannes Brunen wrote: >> This one is at the center of what I'm currently working on. We would >> like to have shadows according to a combination of the following resources: > > hmm, is the patch you sent complete? I started converting it into a > series of commits, but noticed that there are only changes in > Source/Base/Base - in other words there is no user of LiSPSMTechnique in > the tree at this point; is that intentional? As I said, it is work at progress. It is a building block and I considered it as base technology. The other stuff is mainly in base because I did have to extend Plane, Line and Volume. I do not think that it is hurting to have this stuff in Base. I would like to bring self-contained building blocks into the master so that I can concentrate on the next step. For instance if you do not accept my changes to the base elements, I have to reconsider my course of action from the ground up. That would not be feasible in a later state of the development. It is my objective to come up with a suitable LiSPM shadow solution of high quality to be part of public OpenSG. However, it might be that I fail with that undertaking. In that case it would be easy to remove the LiSPMTechnique class if that is desirable. The other Base extensions should imho stay in Base in any case. > That also seems to mean that there is no user of the GL addititions in > part 5 (yet)? The part 5 is concerned with the change of how the GL symbols and dependencies are to be used in OpenSG (*). Currently, we have a pull strategy. That is any newly used symbol/dep are added to the OSGGLEXT.h and OSGGLFuncProtos.h files. I did propose to regular sync with the current official Kronos OpenGL headers. That way you always have the currently correct specs at hand. I really do not like to have to add these things to the OSGGLEXT.h and OSGGLFuncProtos.h by hand during the development. Because then I have to recompile the whole libraries. On the other hand if I patch the my clone with my own OSGGLEXT.h and OSGGLFuncProtos.h, I do not know which symbols/deps are missing in the master without an additional compile cycle (or search procedure). That is the reason why I insistently try to convince you to change procedure. As I have already written, this is controversial at least between Gerrit and me. I did try to bring up an additional argument but that did not get answered: http://www.mail-archive.com/opensg-users%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg15347.html http://www.mail-archive.com/opensg-users%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg15364.html https://sourceforge.net/p/opensg/mailman/opensg-users/thread/1842b7a0-6f1f-3437-f2e8-43de7377a921%40DataSolid.de/#msg35398135 I would like to find a solution that pleases all of us. If it can't be found, I will go on with the patching procedure of my working clone. So Carsten, let me end this long mail with my appreciation to take the work of managing the library. Best, Johannes (*) I'm missing 'OpenSG2: Accumulated changes... part 5: gl' from the mailing list. It has possible be filtered due to the attachment(?) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Opensg-users mailing list Opensg-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-users
