[x3d-public] PROTO Usefulness Question

[Leonard Daly]

John,

> I think the real question is, do we need some kind of Script node on 
> the web?  With fields and routes and everything that comes with it.  
> This is much harder to write than a Proto Expander and much more 
> useful.  We can avoid Proto's with an expander I'd say.  I don't think 
> scripts are in the way of writing an expander (expander comes first), 
> but I could be wrong.
>

I do no object to a PROTO expander (MACRO). I think it could be quite 
useful. It would allow the creation of potentially complex objects with 
a simple node. Used carefully, it would allow the reuse of some nodes 
(with DEF/USE) and allow a few nodes that need to change from occurrence 
to occurrence.

> We just need some effort to bring script nodes into X3DOM.  Can we use 
> cobweb's?
>

I disagree with that for two reasons:

1) HTML/X3DOM already has scripts in the form of standard JavaScript. If 
you are bringing X3D into the DOM, then having two different types of 
scripts would be really bad. One type is normal HTML JavaScript, the 
other (X3D Script) requires definition of fields, automatic calls 
(beginning and ending of frames); and change to the event model.

2) Cobweb does not run in the DOM. The entire set of X3D nodes is 
removed from DOM consideration and completely handled separately. By the 
time you figured out how to use Cobweb's script handling; your are close 
to being integrated with the DOM.


The fundamental question for X3D V4 is "*will it be integrated into the 
DOM?*"

Once that is answered, then a whole lot of secondary questions are 
resolved and only need development work, not design work.

In case any has any doubts, my position is that *X3D V4 MUST be DOM 
integrated*.


Leonard Daly



> On Feb 24, 2016 1:03 PM, "Leonard Daly" <Leonard.Daly at realism.com 
> <mailto:Leonard.Daly at realism.com>> wrote:
>
>     I asked this before but I don't think I got any answers. This is a
>     slight rephrase of the question to help make it clearer.
>
>     I am looking for examples of PROTOs (either internal or external)
>     that are
>     1) non-trivial
>     2) do not use one or more Script nodes
>
>
>     By (1) I mean something that does something useful that is not
>     easy to do without using a PROTO. Something like the Universal
>     Media PROTOs (e.g.,
>     http://www.web3d.org/x3d/content/examples/Basic/UniversalMediaMaterials/_pages/page02.html)
>     provide a lot of convenience to the X3D developer, but each one
>     just defines a Material node with specific characteristics.
>
>     A PROTO that is used repeated in a scene providing a critical
>     feature might be an example of something that meets (1).
>
>
>     I am asking this to determine if it is necessary or useful to have
>     a PROTO expander (sort-of like a MACRO). The expander would not
>     support Script nodes. If there are no examples to this question,
>     then it indicates that PROTOs need Script node(s). Either way,
>     this has an impact on the design of V4.
>
>     -- 
>     *Leonard Daly*
>     3D Systems & Cloud Consultant
>     X3D Co-Chair on Sabbatical
>     LA ACM SIGGRAPH Chair
>     President, Daly Realism - /Creating the Future/
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     x3d-public mailing list
>     x3d-public at web3d.org <mailto:x3d-public at web3d.org>
>     http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>


-- 
*Leonard Daly*
3D Systems & Cloud Consultant
X3D Co-Chair on Sabbatical
LA ACM SIGGRAPH Chair
President, Daly Realism - /Creating the Future/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20160224/232fe452/attachment.html>