On 11/15/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not debating that need, only the build dependency between two libraries.
The circular dependency is down to the new addition of ProducerOSG to Producer. Now one could blame this on osgProducer being wrong along. But its was first by about four years...
osgProducer is higher level than Producer - its add OSG specific > facilities over and above Producer, osgProducer is also naturally > higher level than the core OSG. This is a vertical addition to core OSG then. In order to create the proper build dependencies it should be separate and vertically layered, e.g.. osgProducer ^ Producer ^ OSG
Producer didn't depend on OSG, this is where things have broken down now due to the addition of ProducerOSG.
osgViewer is the conceptually at the same level as > osgProducer/Producer. Yet would you contend that its in the wrong > place? Do they have the same actual build dependencies? I'm guessing not. Probably it's like this... osgProducer osgViewer ^ ^ Producer | ^--------------| OSG
OSG is the whole project, emcompassing osgProducer and osgViewer. Producer *was* safely below all of this in dependency terms. Now if one wants to strip out the viewer code entirely from the OSG distribution then you can rearrange as above. It terms of high level vs low level, is the scene graph below Qt? No is not its just orthogonal. Producer used to be orthogonal, but its not now.
The main reason why Producer being separate from the core OSG is Don's > wish to have sole authority over the Producer. There is no real > conceptual and design reason to that cameras or viewer code being > outside of a scene graph project distribution. I think that Don's wish is orthogonal to the engineering issue. Simply from a build dependency viewpoint consider, by example... OSG is a rendering system. It has vertical applications and modules. Windows XP is an operating system. It has vertical applications and modules.
OSG is a package. Inside it there is a scene graph, nodekits, utlitiy libraries, plugins, examples... Microsoft packages Office separately from Windows XP as a vertical
application. OpenSceneGraph Professional Services packages osgProducer with OSG as a vertical module.
And what are we getting at here. A pointless exercise. I care about breaking the build and screwing up the innocent bystanders who's nice build structure has been messed around with. I care about migrating osgProducer out of the core and maintaining it separately from the core when the timing is right, the timing is in now way shape or form right for this migration. Furthermore I have no time to go ripping huge chunks out of the OSG distribution and disrupting the rest of the community with it. Iddle chatter doesn't solve any of these problems in hand. Can we please stick with the plot and be *constructive* Robert.
_______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://openscenegraph.net/mailman/listinfo/osg-users http://www.openscenegraph.org/
