Right, but my feeling is that the less we have to add at any given stage
the better. If we can do something now, without making any changes to the
spec, we're not painting ourselves into a corner for later on.
> The existing proposal (http://earth.path.net/mitra/vrml-behaviors.html)
> would fit very well with this, it was originally written around the
> assumption that Seperators would change, and fits nicely into a world where
> behaviors are related to Objects.
>
> However, SGI's proposals are much more
> focussed around attaching behaviors, or "Logic" to fields of Open-Inventor
> nodes, for example attaching a behavior to the "rotation" field of a
> Transform node.
Yes, those are the two (quite separate) approaches. The bulk of what I
proposed (in fact, everything except specifying a "behavior" field on an
Object) should be compatible with both.
> I believe that the general feeling is that objects are things, which have
> properties, shapes and now behaviors. But there is a substantial group
> focussed on Open-Inventor where the objects are nodes in a scene graph.
Yes, and those two distinct positions will eventually have to be resolved.
In a sense, the OI approach is much more closely coupled to the notion of
a run-time "scene graph" than the approach which uses higher-level objects.
It seems clear that people want to gradually move away from the scene graph
metaphor, and towards a model that uses higher-level objects.
I'm drafting a short document that describes what I believe are the
differences between the two approaches, but I probably won't get it done
before I leave for Boston (tomorrow morning).
> I'd be interested in hearing other people's ideas on this?
So would I.
-- Bernie Roehl University of Waterloo Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering Mail:[email protected] Voice: (519) 888-4567 x 2607 [work] URL:http://sunee.uwaterloo.ca/~broehl