On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 09:44 +1200, Hartmut Seichter wrote: > Hi there, > > now there is a new development line coming up I wanted to throw in some > thoughts which would be interesting to know for further development of > OSG (way beyond 2.7.x) and some of the infrastructure. As you might know > I am working on osgSWIG and osgART and a handful other software projects > which are used on client systems - so deployment and stability is one of > my main concerns. > > - documentation, there are numerous additions recently and in the past > like osgWidgets or osgManipulators which are very interesting but not as > interesting to reverse document the code - at least a "real" API > documentation would be sufficient > > - examples: I am also partly teaching computer graphics and an augmented > reality class which heavily rely on OSG. One of the problems I see the > students facing is that some of the examples are actually applications > and seem to have started simple and went off to show the most convoluted > brain-jogging way to achieve something simple - van der Rohe: Less is More > > > On the deployment and integration side: > > - API additions which change ABI are not documented well: with osgSWIG I > am basically poking in the dark, waiting for SWIG to cough up the changes > > - do I assume right/wrong that API change involves an increment in > SOVERSION, it would make backwards compatibility easy > > > And now the more deep down things, which I think would be interesting to > look at in a long term plan: > > - with the Mac OS X 10.4 - 10.5 disaster it should be clear that one > can't assume a certain implementation of OpenGL available and relying on > it on the front-end > > - this leads unevitably to OpenGL 3.x and OpenGL ES 2.0 (what happened > to the investigation of this?) on the horizon - which hints for hidden > backends as with ES there is no certainty of the actual implementation > of parts of the API - so you might need to roll your own depending on > the hardware detected > > - bundling math includes in one header to be able to exchange some > implementation (ie. floating point emulation) > > > > Sorry for the lengthy email. Objective is to get some discussion in the > OSG community - so please throw in you 2ct :)
I totally agree, and have been wanting to write osgWidget documentation for a while. I wanted to create a PDF for this purpose in osgWidget, but I'm pretty sure that doxygen comments would be more useful; at least, I get the impression that is what most people use. I've always been a code-looker myself, which is why I guess I took so quickly to OSG. It's been a long time since I did anything other than look at an example or the actual source to answer a question I had, but I know this isn't necessarily the norm... > Cheers, > Hartmut > > > _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
