HI Filip, I've done a review of your changes and feel that perhaps a better solution would be to add a virtual getSceneData method into osg::View and then use this in the addSlave methods and not subclass them.
Robert. On 10/5/07, Robert Osfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > HI Filip, > > I haven't reviewed your changes yet but overriding a method makes be > think that this change will break binary compatibility so is probably > a good candidate for 2.3.x rather than the 2.2.x branch. > > For 2.2.x one should be able to call > > viewer.assignSceneDataToCameras(); > > If you are assigning cameras after the setSceneData(). > > Robert. > > On 10/5/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Robert, > > > > This fixes problem with scene data not being attached to slave camera if > > viewer already has scene data assigned to it. Which was the actual reason I > > could not see scene data in the CompositeViewer example I posted on the > > osg-users a couple of days ago. > > > > Consider the following example. > > ..... > > osgViewer viewer; > > viewer.setSceneData(pSomeSceneData); > > viewer.addSlaveCamera(pSomeSlaveCamera,true); //Expecting pSomeSlaveCamera > > to be assigned the masters scene data > > viewer.run(); > > ..... > > > > Note: > > If you're wondering why I have overridden the convenience method > > addSlaveCamera(Camera*,bool); > > It's because of C++ is using hide by name rather than hide by signature. I > > had not realized this limitation before, so it took me some time to figure > > out the best approach. > > > > Thanks for this great open source project. > > > > Filip > > > > _______________________________________________ > > osg-submissions mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ osg-submissions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org
