[x3d-public] [x3dom-users] Whither protoexpander in X3DOM? umm, just define input-to-output and write code

Thu Jun 4 10:56:12 PDT 2020

Just another incremental update which enables event routing into
ProtoInstances, via forwarding to the internal nodes:

https://andreasplesch.github.io/x3dom/test/functional/proto/inline.html
https://5ed930d641a27700082647b9--x3dom.netlify.app/examples/functional/proto/inline.html

Sofar it was possible to treat ProtoInstance as a statement without
generating a full X3DNode derived member of the scene graph. This was
easier to reason about, following the expansion approach. But I start
to think it required essentially reimplementing enough of the X3DNode
related functionality that it may be time to try to switch to have a
ProtoInstanceNode itself in the scenegraph which then internally
represents itself with the Proto definition.

What would be a good example to test routing events emitted from a
ProtoInstance, without a script node ? Eg. a useful Proto which
generates events ? Perhaps a combination of event utilities ?

-Andreas

On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 7:17 PM Andreas Plesch <andreasplesch at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I could enable custom fields for Protos, eg. ProtoInterface,
> IS/connect and ProtoInstance fieldValue, to a usable degree:
>
> https://5ed82885ae201410e81024b3--x3dom.netlify.app/examples/functional/proto/inline.html
> https://andreasplesch.github.io/x3dom/test/functional/proto/inline.html
>
> ( key 'a' or 'r' of you do not see the fish, to adjust the view. )
>
> SFNode type fields work, MFNode type fields perhaps also. Initial
> value from ProtoInterface, and using the ProtoInstance field value
> otherwise should work. Routing from and to a ProtoInstance does not
> work yet. Is there an example _without_ Script node which uses routes
> from or to a ProtoInstance ?
>
> I also came across the question what to do if in a ProtoBody a node
> which has a IS field connection to a ProtoField with an initial value,
> also has a field value for the same field. Here is an example:
>
> <ProtoInterface>
>   <field accessType='inputOutput' name='color' type='SFColor' value='0,0,0'/>
> ...
>
> <ProtoBody>
>   <Material diffuseColor='1,0,0'>
>      <IS>
>         <connect protoField='color' nodeField='diffuseColor' />
> ...
>
> Is the initial color 0,0,0 (black) or 1,0,0 (red) ? Probably black.
>
> To avoid this redundancy, the initial value could only be defined in
> the ProtoBody, in a future iteration of X3D.
>
> All the code is still NodeNameSpace.js. It was possible to keep it
> separate from existing functions. The approach for field manipulation
> is largely via DOM updates of cloned ProtoBodies. This avoids having
> to deal with field value types.
>
> I have an idea for Routing, so this is next. A good example would be
> great. Perhaps animating the table colors is an easy one first.
>
> -Andreas
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 8:09 AM Andreas Plesch <andreasplesch at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, true.
> >
> > If default values are the main reason to have a ProtoInterface, they could be just moved into the connect tag as a value attribute.
> >
> > Alternatively, the spec. could define that default values always fall back to the default value of the connected field of a native x3d node. The recommendation is any case to provide values for all fields in a ProtoInstance since a Proto may not be well documented.
> >
> > So simplifying protos may be possible by only relying on IS connections to define fields and omitting or moving the ability to allow custom default values.
> >
> > ProtoInterface does provide a nice, consolidated place to list all parameters for a Proto. But that is really a documentation feature, and ProtoDeclares typically are accompanied by an example ProtoInstance intended to show how to use Proto parameters/fields.
> >
> > Lastly, ProtoInterface does allow restricting access to native inputoutput fields to only input or only output. But when is that ability really useful ? Authors know how a Proto is intended to be used, and implementations have to support all access types in any case.
> >
> > Protos are very verbose in the xml encoding. So not needing a ProtoInterface section would help a little with cutting down this verbosity.
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> > ---on the phone---
> >
> > On Sun, May 31, 2020, 7:11 PM John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> We need protointerface for default values.
> >>
> >> On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 4:50 PM Andreas Plesch <andreasplesch at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I adopted the idea to put the helper/sibling nodes of a ProtoInstance
> >>> into a Switch node, which is added as a root node to the main scene.
> >>> See the new MaterialBlinker proto here:
> >>>
> >>> https://andreasplesch.github.io/x3dom/test/functional/proto/inline.html
> >>> https://5ed41e4b7244550007f7272f--x3dom.netlify.app/examples/functional/proto/inline.html
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/andreasplesch/x3dom/blob/gh-pages/test/functional/proto/MaterialBlinker.x3d
> >>>
> >>> The added switch node exists only in the x3d graph, not in the dom
> >>> graph, so is kind of hidden.
> >>>
> >>> This is starting to have wider use compared to DEF/USE instancing.
> >>>
> >>> The next step would be routable fields. It would be nice to break down
> >>> that functionality into smaller units.
> >>>
> >>> One way to think about IS/connect is to ignore the ProtoInterface
> >>> definition initially and use directly the field names mentioned in the
> >>> connect tag to establish additional internal routes. It may be
> >>> preferable to modify routes since sofar there is no actual
> >>> ProtoInstanceNode node with actual fields. An idea may be to define
> >>> such a node which does not do anything other than define the custom
> >>> fields and forward events to the internal nodes.
> >>>
> >>> Would it be possible to autogenerate a ProtoInterface definition from
> >>> a ProtoBody with IS connections ? The fields names are all there and
> >>> the access types just follow the types from the native nodes. Do we
> >>> actually need a ProtoInterface definition ?
> >>>
> >>> -Andreas
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 12:30 PM Andreas Plesch <andreasplesch at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > Sorry, I misunderstood how Switch could help. I missed the expanded example:
> >>> >
> >>> > http://x3dgraphics.com/examples/X3dForWebAuthors/Chapter14Prototypes/MaterialModulatorPrototypeExpandedIndex.html
> >>> >
> >>> > The Switch node containing the sibling/helper nodes is just appended
> >>> > to the end of the main scene, not after the main node. Does that work
> >>> > in general ? It may (but nesting?). It also means that the siblings
> >>> > nodes can only be X3DChildNodes which also may be ok. Could there be
> >>> > non child nodes which are used as helpers nodes ? I cannot think of
> >>> > any right now although the spec. does not seem to restrict what is
> >>> > inside a Proto definition.
> >>> >
> >>> > Let's think about nesting and DEF/USE. USE of ProtoInstance may work
> >>> > by just placing a USE instance of the main node, upon expansion or
> >>> > scene construction. I think it could.
> >>> >
> >>> > But where would the sibling Switch go for a nested ProtoInstance,
> >>> > inside a ProtoBody ?
> >>> >
> >>> > I will try to add some diagrams but this will be quite dizzying.
> >>> > Apologies for that.
> >>> >
> >>> > If the ProtoInstance is or is inside the first, main node, upon
> >>> > expansion a potential sibling Switch would be appended after the
> >>> > siblings of the first node, as another sibling:
> >>> >
> >>> > ProtoBody
> >>> >   main node: ProtoInstance
> >>> >   siblings
> >>> >
> >>> > expansion ->
> >>> >
> >>> > ProtoBody
> >>> >   main node: ProtoInstanceExpandedMain
> >>> >   siblings
> >>> >   ProtoInstanceExpandedSwitch
> >>> >
> >>> > Then, the expansion of the ProtoBody would place a Switch node
> >>> > containing all siblings which now includes the inner sibling Switch at
> >>> > the end of the main scene. That sounds right to me.
> >>> >
> >>> > If the ProtoInstance is a sibling the first, main node, upon expansion
> >>> > a potential sibling Switch would be appended after the siblings of the
> >>> > first node, as another sibling, along with the main node:
> >>> >
> >>> > ProtoBody
> >>> >   main node
> >>> >   siblings
> >>> >   ProtoInstance
> >>> >
> >>> > expansion ->
> >>> >
> >>> > ProtoBody
> >>> >   main node
> >>> >   siblings
> >>> >   ProtoInstanceExpandedMain
> >>> >   ProtoInstanceExpandedSwitch
> >>> >
> >>> > Then, the expansion of the ProtoBody would place a Switch node
> >>> > containing all siblings which now includes both the inner main and the
> >>> > inner sibling Switch at the end of the main scene. That looks also
> >>> > reasonable at first glance.
> >>> >
> >>> > In that sense ProtoInstance would require ProtoDeclare or ProtoBody to
> >>> > be recognized similar to Scene, for expansion purposes. That is
> >>> > similar to how x-ite works. For x-ite a ProtoDeclaration is a
> >>> > ExecutionContext.
> >>> >
> >>> > Well, I think this helped me understand Protos a bit better in any case,
> >>> >
> >>> > -Andreas
> >>> >
> >>> > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 7:36 PM John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Don suggested a Switch node at one point (thanks Don).
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 1:28 PM Andreas Plesch <andreasplesch at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> Internal namescopes and better parsing made nested ProtoDeclares
> >>> > >> inside ProtoBody and internal ROUTEs work:
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> https://andreasplesch.github.io/x3dom/test/functional/proto/inline.html
> >>> > >> https://5ed144877a8ae8000756ddd1--x3dom.netlify.app/examples/functional/proto/inline.html
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> I am still not sure how to think about multiple nodes in a ProtoBody
> >>> > >> template since these are not scenes. Many examples seem to have only
> >>> > >> one node, and only routes outside of it.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> Conceptually, it is pretty clear that the first node is THE node, and
> >>> > >> other nodes do not render but are active and can be connected.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> Let's look at the Material Modulator example:
> >>> > >> http://x3dgraphics.com/examples/X3dForWebAuthors/Chapter14Prototypes/MaterialModulatorIndex.html
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> The main node is the Material node but then there are Script and
> >>> > >> TimeSensor siblings, and routes.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> So the instance will be of Material node kind, an
> >>> > >> X3DAppearanceChildNode. This allows the instance to be accepted as a
> >>> > >> value of the Material field in an Appearance node.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> But the Script and TimeSensor sibling instances will not be able to
> >>> > >> continue to live as siblings next to the instanced Material node since
> >>> > >> they are not X3DAppearanceChildNodes. They will need to live somewhere
> >>> > >> else but still be able to control the instanced Material node.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> So a straight transfer of a one to one instance to the scene seems out
> >>> > >> of the question.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> I kind of hope I am missing something ? Is there another way to think
> >>> > >> about Protoinstances ?
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> Probably time to look at other code for inspiration.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> -Andreas
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 8:39 AM Andreas Plesch <andreasplesch at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > I added a few more Proto test examples to
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > https://andreasplesch.github.io/x3dom/test/functional/proto/inline.html
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > and
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > https://5ed100c873166e0006438ab0--x3dom.netlify.app/examples/functional/proto/inline.html
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > That includes a NIST example which uses internal routing and one which
> >>> > >> > has ProtoDeclare inside ProtoBody, nested five deep. These are good
> >>> > >> > targets to get to work before thinking about fields and interface.
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > https://www.web3d.org/x3d/content/examples/ConformanceNist/Miscellaneous/PROTO/index.html
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > -Andreas
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:35 PM Andreas Plesch <andreasplesch at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > > It turns out that github pages does not like serving all the little js
> >>> > >> > > files making up x3dom separately.
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > > Here is a complete build with the example:
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > > https://5ed055bd4da4fa0007bf3d0a--x3dom.netlify.app/examples/functional/proto/inline.html
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > > -Andreas
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:43 PM Andreas Plesch <andreasplesch at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > >> > > >
> >>> > >> > > > I could not resist a proof of concept for the subgraph inclusion part of Protos.
> >>> > >> > > >
> >>> > >> > > > https://andreasplesch.github.io/x3dom/test/functional/proto/inline.html
> >>> > >> > > >
> >>> > >> > > > This is an absolutely minimal start. There is only creation of
> >>> > >> > > > instances, using only the first element in the ProtoBody. There is no
> >>> > >> > > > ProtoInterface or events handling.
> >>> > >> > > > It should work for all single node Protos.
> >>> > >> > > >
> >>> > >> > > > But it only took a few lines in the right place
> >>> > >> > > > (https://github.com/andreasplesch/x3dom/commit/1e0ff82c2f7c77adcb521d62ff5172cf159943fb).
> >>> > >> > > >
> >>> > >> > > > I understand that only the first node in a ProtoBody is used for the
> >>> > >> > > > template. It can be of course a grouping node. Other nodes in the
> >>> > >> > > > ProtoBody can affect the first node with internal routing.
> >>> > >> > > >
> >>> > >> > > > Inline is in effect a grouping node but this will not translate to
> >>> > >> > > > ProtoInstance. I will have to look at more examples to understand
> >>> > >> > > > better how multiple nodes are inserted with a single ProtoInstance.
> >>> > >> > > >
> >>> > >> > > > -Andreas
> >>> > >> > > >
> >>> > >> > > >
> >>> > >> > > >
> >>> > >> > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 3:09 PM Andreas Plesch <andreasplesch at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > >> > > > >
> >>> > >> > > > > Let me write down a few notes on ProtoDeclare/Instance.
> >>> > >> > > > >
> >>> > >> > > > > - The expander approach would be ok for x3dom as well but I am not
> >>> > >> > > > > sure if it is easier to implement.
> >>> > >> > > > > - These are Statements and would be handled separately from Nodes,
> >>> > >> > > > > similar to ROUTE, in x3dom in NodeNameSpace.js
> >>> > >> > > > > - in x3dom gltf inlines are handled by translation to a (by default
> >>> > >> > > > > non-accessible) sub DOM, which is then tree parsed and added as a
> >>> > >> > > > > subgraph in a child namespace to the main scene. Similar to
> >>> > >> > > > > ProtoInstance this involves some processing before attaching to the
> >>> > >> > > > > main scene. So I think it would be not too hard to do the same for
> >>> > >> > > > > ProtoInstance by looking up the corresponding ProtoBody in a registry.
> >>> > >> > > > > The registry is populated while parsing, looking for ProtoDeclare
> >>> > >> > > > > elements.
> >>> > >> > > > > - the main challenge is how to implement custom fields, and 'IS' ing.
> >>> > >> > > > > For routing to ProtoInstances there needs to be a crossing of the
> >>> > >> > > > > namescope boundary.
> >>> > >> > > > > - ProtoInstances are more like Nodes than Statements, since they need
> >>> > >> > > > > to be included in traversing the scene.
> >>> > >> > > > > - not sure if x3dom currently has a way to send events into namescoped
> >>> > >> > > > > subgraphs (via IS/connect), and capture events from those (via
> >>> > >> > > > > IS/connect).
> >>> > >> > > > > - perhaps it makes sense to have the ProtoInstance statement construct
> >>> > >> > > > > a ProtoInstanceNode node to insert in the scenegraph. The statement
> >>> > >> > > > > takes care of field definitions for the node, and the node takes care
> >>> > >> > > > > of ISing and events during travesal.
> >>> > >> > > > >
> >>> > >> > > > > -Andreas
> >>> > >> > > > >
> >>> > >> > > > >
> >>> > >> > > > >
> >>> > >> > > > >
> >>> > >> > > > >
> >>> > >> > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:52 AM John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > >> > > > > >
> >>> > >> > > > > > so perhaps this is the reasoning Leonard had.:
> >>> > >> > > > > >
> >>> > >> > > > > > Developers and designers want the full power of the web.   If I restrict people to inlines, they can’t use standard tools to inspect the DOM, especially where it’s critical.
> >>> > >> > > > > >
> >>> > >> > > > > > 1.   Should X3D4 allow all X3D elements in the HTML page or perhaps just a few?
> >>> > >> > > > > >
> >>> > >> > > > > > 2.  Should X3D4 allow Protos on the main HTML page?  Or only in inlines?
> >>> > >> > > > > >
> >>> > >> > > > > > John
> >>> > >> > > > >
> >>> > >> > > > >
> >>> > >> > > > >
> >>> > >> > > > > --
> >>> > >> > > > > Andreas Plesch
> >>> > >> > > > > Waltham, MA 02453
> >>> > >> > > >
> >>> > >> > > >
> >>> > >> > > >
> >>> > >> > > > --
> >>> > >> > > > Andreas Plesch
> >>> > >> > > > Waltham, MA 02453
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > >
> >>> > >> > > --
> >>> > >> > > Andreas Plesch
> >>> > >> > > Waltham, MA 02453
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> >
> >>> > >> > --
> >>> > >> > Andreas Plesch
> >>> > >> > Waltham, MA 02453
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> --
> >>> > >> Andreas Plesch
> >>> > >> Waltham, MA 02453
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Andreas Plesch
> >>> > Waltham, MA 02453
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Andreas Plesch
> >>> Waltham, MA 02453
>
>
>
> --
> Andreas Plesch
> Waltham, MA 02453

-- 
Andreas Plesch
Waltham, MA 02453