Re: [vos-d] State of S4 Scripting (Lalo!)
Also spracht Reed Hedges (Sun, 01 Jul 2007 11:56:15 -0400): > OK, cool. Maybe we can tar up the Python stuff as a separate download in > case people want to try it out? Though lack of message handling might > be a problem for some people? That wouldn't be too hard, I guess. > So, you plan on moving forward with S5 scripting some time in the > future, and not really continuoing to work on S4 scripting? (which would > be basically a dead end.) Yes. There is already a prototype s5-scripting branch somewhere to match Peter's prototype s5 branch, and it looks absolutely beautiful, although from what I understand of Peter's July plans, I guess I'll have to pretty much rewrite it for the real s5 :-) best, Lalo Martins -- So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable. - personal:http://lalo.hystericalraisins.net/ technical:http://www.hystericalraisins.net/ GNU: never give up freedom http://www.gnu.org/ ___ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
Re: [vos-d] State of S4 Scripting (Lalo!)
OK, cool. Maybe we can tar up the Python stuff as a separate download in case people want to try it out? Though lack of message handling might be a problem for some people? So, you plan on moving forward with S5 scripting some time in the future, and not really continuoing to work on S4 scripting? (which would be basically a dead end.) Reed Lalo Martins wrote: > Also spracht Reed Hedges (Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:58:40 -0400): >> What is the state of the S4 scripting branch >> (http://interreality.org/home/bzroot/s4-scripting)? Does the Python >> interface work? > > disclaimer: I haven't touched it in months. I'm answering half from > memory, half from a quick look in the last two hours. > > The whole scripting extension idea suffers from one conceptual "bug", as > explained to me by Peter: in-process messaging isn't guaranteed to work > in s4, and scripts communicate with c++ entirely by messages. However, > in my tests, it has worked flawlessly; my tests aren't very extensive, > though, so it's possible I didn't cover whatever corner case it is that > breaks them. > > The Python interface mostly works. You can build script objects from a > string or file, and you can execute it. Missing is the idea of "script > properties" we discussed before. Binding a script to respond to a > message requires a hack. Also, it should probably be doable from Python > as well, and it isn't. > > The JavaScript interface segfaults like there's no tomorrow, due to my > poor understanding of SpiderMonkey's weird garbage collection. > > And the whole thing isn't hooked into the vos build system. > > All in all, I'm not sure it's worth fixing; it value would be, at best, a > "technology preview" of the kind of script you'll get (much more safely) > in s5, and at that, it won't even be api-compatible. If anyone really > wants it, they can compile from the branch; then again, if you think you > want it, you probably actually want s5 :-) > > best, >Lalo Martins ___ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
Re: [vos-d] State of S4 Scripting (Lalo!)
Also spracht Reed Hedges (Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:58:40 -0400): > What is the state of the S4 scripting branch > (http://interreality.org/home/bzroot/s4-scripting)? Does the Python > interface work? disclaimer: I haven't touched it in months. I'm answering half from memory, half from a quick look in the last two hours. The whole scripting extension idea suffers from one conceptual "bug", as explained to me by Peter: in-process messaging isn't guaranteed to work in s4, and scripts communicate with c++ entirely by messages. However, in my tests, it has worked flawlessly; my tests aren't very extensive, though, so it's possible I didn't cover whatever corner case it is that breaks them. The Python interface mostly works. You can build script objects from a string or file, and you can execute it. Missing is the idea of "script properties" we discussed before. Binding a script to respond to a message requires a hack. Also, it should probably be doable from Python as well, and it isn't. The JavaScript interface segfaults like there's no tomorrow, due to my poor understanding of SpiderMonkey's weird garbage collection. And the whole thing isn't hooked into the vos build system. All in all, I'm not sure it's worth fixing; it value would be, at best, a "technology preview" of the kind of script you'll get (much more safely) in s5, and at that, it won't even be api-compatible. If anyone really wants it, they can compile from the branch; then again, if you think you want it, you probably actually want s5 :-) best, Lalo Martins -- So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable. - personal:http://lalo.hystericalraisins.net/ technical:http://www.hystericalraisins.net/ GNU: never give up freedom http://www.gnu.org/ ___ vos-d mailing list vos-d@interreality.org http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
