Hi Julian, A quick note, right now I'm focused on getting 3.5.3 out the door so won't be merging new features till this is done. This means there isn't any big hurry to get things resolved w.r.t osgDB changes etc. I'll be back on the case next week.
Cheers, Robert. On 3 June 2016 at 12:01, Julien Valentin <[email protected]> wrote: > Arg > I made mistakes in the submision.. > I open a new thread for the sake of archiving > > > mp3butcher wrote: >> Based on the observation that flagging associates should be repeated in all >> derived classes: >> In the use case of Drawable's "new" associate Node, it force to repeated the >> associate revision tag >> >> Code: >> { >> UPDATE_TO_VERSION_SCOPED( 143 ) >> ADDED_ASSOCIATE("osg::Node") >> } >> >> >> >> in all derived class serializer derivated from Drawable :Geometry, >> ShapeDrawable, RigGeometry ..and so on... >> (not very great) >> >> So, I added a mecanism (in ObjectWrapper and IN/OUTputStream cpps) in order >> to simulate inheritance of associate revisions tags. >> I can't find any use case that would obliterate my reasoning but I'm opened >> to critics >> >> >> >> mp3butcher wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > mp3butcher wrote: >> > > I add some debug output (perhaps they can be merged too) >> > > and tests I have done seams to work. >> > > >> > > >> > > robertosfield wrote: >> > > > Hi Julien, >> > > > >> > > > We are getting close :-) >> > > > >> > > > Still passing strings as strings rather than const string&, but I can >> > > > changed that :-) >> > > > >> > > > I'm inclined to change the split function to directly add the strings >> > > > into the associate list rather than put them in a StringList then copy >> > > > it as this will be more efficient and require less code. Again this is >> > > > small tweak that I can implement. >> > > > >> > > > Have you tested out the feature yet? >> > > > >> > > > Robert. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On 2 June 2016 at 12:45, Julien Valentin <> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Here's the new submission >> > > > > Hope I didn't miss a thing >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > robertosfield wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Julien, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On 2 June 2016 at 11:46, Julien Valentin <> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I may not be clear enough: >> > > > > > > If you change the inheritance of a class (such Drawable >> > > > > > > inheriting from Node) the base class serializer is already used >> > > > > > > by other (Node serializer is already used in Group etc...) so >> > > > > > > you don't want to tag the wrapper with a version (tagging Node >> > > > > > > serializer with newversion would make no sense as it's already >> > > > > > > present in previous version).So You need finer version tagging >> > > > > > > control... >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Yes, now makes perfect sense. Given this constraint my suggestion >> > > > > > of >> > > > > > embedding the supported versions into the wrapper itself isn't >> > > > > > workable. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > You approach looks to be the best way forward. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Your changes aren't ready to merge as is yet as the coding style >> > > > > > (indents/spacing/placement of {), are at odds with the rest of code >> > > > > > around them. If we merge changes that use different coding styles >> > > > > > the >> > > > > > OSG code base would end up a bit of a mess and less readable and >> > > > > > maintainable for it. Could you adjust your code to fit in better. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Key things are: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > open { on a a separate line to if etc. statement. >> > > > > > four spaces for indentation within {} block >> > > > > > no spaces between object->method >> > > > > > passing objects by const& rather than as a straight objects. i.e. >> > > > > > const std::string& rather than std::string. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > There will be little ones besides these, general rule If the code >> > > > > > looks like it's written be different developers then it's a >> > > > > > something >> > > > > > that grates. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Cheers, >> > > > > > Robert. >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > > > osg-submissions mailing list >> > > > > > >> > > > > > http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org >> > > > > > >> > > > > > ------------------ >> > > > > > Post generated by Mail2Forum >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > ------------------ >> > > > > Read this topic online here: >> > > > > http://forum.openscenegraph.org/viewtopic.php?p=67346#67346 >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > > osg-submissions mailing list >> > > > > >> > > > > http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > osg-submissions mailing list >> > > > >> > > > http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org >> > > > >> > > > ------------------ >> > > > Post generated by Mail2Forum >> > > >> > >> >> Code: >> >> >> > > > ------------------ > Read this topic online here: > http://forum.openscenegraph.org/viewtopic.php?p=67382#67382 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
