Hoi John, I appreciate your enthusiasm for osgswig, we hear you! Including osgswig in the main repo would certainly increase its exposure and use. However, I'm not really sure if the "Including them would ensure that they are kept up to date"-argument would hold just yet. There are also quite some issues that still need to be resolved (especially for alternative languages other than Python), and not too many developers helping out at this point. The bindings currently involve quite some manual work, and it is hard to keep up with all the changes.
I would instead encourage you and other developers/users to help out by posting issues,requests and questions here and on the osgswig issue tracker at http://code.google.com/p/osgswig/ . In due time, we may get in sync with the osg releases. cheers, Gerwin On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:36 PM, john casu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > the SWIG bindings are so useful, that it seems like a good idea to include > them with the main release, predicated with -DBUILD_SWIG_BINDINGS & > -DBUILD_PYTHON_SWIG_BINDINGS or -DBUILD_RUBY_SWIG_BINDINGS (etc..) flags. > > Including them would ensure that they are kept up to date, and that any > bindings are correct for the installed release of OSG. Moreover, it would > encourage the building of those bindings for other languages, other than > python or ruby. > > ... > > Thank you! > > Cheers, > john > > ------------------ > Read this topic online here: > http://forum.openscenegraph.org/viewtopic.php?p=15708#15708 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > osg-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org >
_______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
