Re: VRML 2.0 and Behaviours

Mark Waks ([email protected])
Mon, 17 Apr 95 15:41:51 EDT

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: [email protected]: "MISC: Sound Physics"
Previous message: Stephen Mattin: "Re: URN's -- adequate and/or appropriate"
Maybe in reply to: Chris Hall: "VRML 2.0 and Behaviours"
Next in thread: Mike Roberts: "Re: VRML 2.0 and Behaviours"

I'm trying to understand Don's proposed behaviour model, but I'm having
a rocky time of it. Don, could you maybe describe it in some more
concrete fashion -- roughly what you expect each layer's interactions
to be like? I'm interpreting the description as having an "Engine"
layer which is essentially an API, being driven by "Behaviour
generators" which are doing the real work (which comes off as more
or less similar to the Geomview approach), but I'm not sure that I'm
grasping it right. Can you provide a clearer example?

(Bear in mind that the term "Engine" is a heavily loaded one; if you
don't mean exactly the same thing that SGI does by it, you might want
to pick a term with fewer connotations...)

-- Justin

Random Quote du Jour:

"If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle, to the Phoenix Republican
Forum, March 1990

Next message: [email protected]: "MISC: Sound Physics"
Previous message: Stephen Mattin: "Re: URN's -- adequate and/or appropriate"
Maybe in reply to: Chris Hall: "VRML 2.0 and Behaviours"
Next in thread: Mike Roberts: "Re: VRML 2.0 and Behaviours"