[xinf] Fw: Re: Xinfinity scenegraph

[daniel fischer]

trying this again. is something wrong with the mailing list?

<forwarded-message>

Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 14:53:19 +0100
From: daniel fischer <dan at f3c.com>
To: xinf at xinf.org
Subject: Re: [xinf] Xinfinity scenegraph


"Daniel Cassidy" <xinf at danielcassidy.me.uk> (on Sat, 23 Dec 2006 01:25:13 +0000):

  > On 12/22/06, daniel fischer <dan at f3c.com> wrote:
  > > cannot quite see the difference to what i do now,
  > Well, it's not supposed to be dramatically different; quite the

i didnt mean this was a bad thing :)

  > What *is* dramatically different is that I'd like to see this stuff
  > implemented in the player itself, in C, for speed, and xinfony's high
  > level API more or less directly wrapping to a fairly-high level
  > representation in the player.
  > 
  > However, for some reason some of the rationale for the seperation of
  > xinfony/xinferno/xinfinity is only just starting to defuzz in my
  > brain, and I suspect that you will feel I've just uttered the most
  > utterly daft thing you've ever heard :).

i've heard quite a few dumber things, especially from politicians :)
seriously though, iteration1 of xinf didnt have the erno/ony separation,
and i feel *much* more comfortable with it. the xinfony layer is really
very thin, and erno will allow for quite some neat tricks in the future.
it is so thin that i don't see much point in "accellerating" it with C,
the basic support for an object model is in the erno interface (with its
startObject etc). i.e., i'd really like to keep renderer implementations
on the erno level, so ony has to know as little as possible about runtimes.

I'm still onto writing some docs about the whole erno idea..

  > (Oh, I'm probably confusing things by talking about 'classes'. For
  > some problems talking in terms of classes and objects makes sense to
  > me even when the target language is C. The implementation does then
  > tend to look distinctly OOP-style as a result.)

oh, i'm used to gobject, so this kind of thinking is okay with me :)

i have to think more before i can comment on the other stuff. what i
started last night though is to try have a xinferno renderer in C,
rather directly, hoping for a much easier porting to cairo/agg/whever.
Your thinking helped me a lot, it might well be that i entered a
dead end when trying to implement it all with haxe. It seems now
the Renderer interface will (again) change a little, because i
currently have some haXe constructs in it which make porting to C
harder-- more news on that soon i hope.


  > It actually probably makes more sense than me. I don't pretend to be
  > an expert on 3D graphics, but I don't see that as a big problem. A
  > month ago, I wasn't an expert on XPath, and a few months before that I
  > hadn't written a line of ActionScript in my life :).

hehe, it's good to see people with other backgrounds enter the haXe/flash
world- i myself have never done anything serious with actionscript, but
i've observed my flatmate mark for quite a while now :)

apropos xpath, how is that going? will the implementation be opensource?


in related news, i managed to invent a crude kludge for packaging 3rd-
party DLLs for windows. I have to do some license checking yet, but
i'm still hoping to get a 0.1 out over the holidays..

-dan

-- 
http://0xDF.com/
http://iterative.org/


</forwarded-message>

-- 
http://0xDF.com/
http://iterative.org/