Subject:
|
Re: A comprehensive LDraw object model
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sun, 10 Feb 2002 22:51:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
564 times
|
| |
|
|
Sproaticus wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Kyle McDonald writes:
>
> > This is interesting. I wonder what we can do as far as making it both
> > comprehensive and generic enough to be easily used by all those
> > languages. (I haven't fully read your second message but I"ll probably
> > have more comments there.)
>
>
> I'll have a better answer for this when I port my Java implementation to
> Perl. But yah, I guess "comprehensive" and "generic" don't quite mix well.
I can definately see the benefits of a standard library interface.
Even an implementation might have a lot of uses.
I just think that you will get the best design for the interface,
if you forget about how you or anyone implemented it in the past.
I would even try to keep any particular language out of the picture
until at least the class relationships are done. Languages may
have to be considerd when detailing the fields and methods though.
> I want comprehensive, in that this library could be used for many
> different methods of manipulating a datfile.
>
I think you're right that there is a definate need for DAT file
processeing library.
> I want generic, in that it could be implemented and used in different
> languages, and on many different platforms and architectures.
You're right it would be useful to be available as much as possible.
It should be the same in the same language on all platforms, but I'm
not sure that it needs to be identical in all languages.
>
> > I understand your dislike for J3d, and we don't need to go through that
> > again,
>
>
> Please forgive me. I was just poking some fun at myself as well as J3D, but
> it looks like I came across as rude. I meant no offense. :-,
I didn't take any offense. I was just trying to make sure this thread
stayed on topic and that I didn't drag us into what we talked about in
the other thread.
>
> > Also in your evaluation J3D etc... Did you happen to try GL4Java?
>
>
> No, I skipped that, I don't even know if I have an OpenGL library on this
> machine. I was looking more at the DirectX aspect...
Well most windows9X/NT/2K/XP have OpenGL from MS.
> Why do you ask?
I haven't had a chance to look at it either. I was wondering
what (if you had looked at it) you thought of it.
Let's keep this discussion moving. I think the goal is a good one.
-Kyle
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A comprehensive LDraw object model
|
| (...) I'll have a better answer for this when I port my Java implementation to Perl. But yah, I guess "comprehensive" and "generic" don't quite mix well. I want comprehensive, in that this library could be used for many different methods of (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
30 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
