[x3d-public] x3dom prototypes, extern proto

John Carlson yottzumm at gmail.com
Sun Jun 28 17:14:48 PDT 2020


I remembered one more place to patch in X3DOM:

diff --git a/src/Runtime.js b/src/Runtime.js
index e7e2d5e2..2ca1c756 100755
--- a/src/Runtime.js
+++ b/src/Runtime.js
@@ -1610,7 +1610,9 @@ x3dom.Runtime.prototype.createX3DFromJS = function (
jsobject, optionalURL )
 {
     if ( optionalURL )
     {
+           /* Waiting for Andreas' proto code to delete this code. TODO
         jsobject = x3dom.protoExpander.prototypeExpander( optionalURL,
jsobject );
+       */
     }
     var jsonParser = new x3dom.JSONParser();
     return jsonParser.parseJavaScript( jsobject );

On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 5:40 PM John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com> wrote:

> I got some more time to work on this, and the new X3DOM proto code does
> just as well with JSON as it does for XML. Congratulations!
>
> I think if Andreas fixes the outstanding rubik*'s errors (hopefully this
> will stop the BoxEm errors), and the t1.json/t1.x3d error in the x3dom
> issues, I believe we can declare this successful, and we can move onto
> "scripts"--whatever we're going to call the new script node, if not
> Script.  If someone has a document on how X3DOM routes work (especially
> with namescopes), that will help me help with scripts.
>
> I'm not checking in my X3DJSONLD proto expander disabling code for now.
> For now, my copy will remain disabled for testing.
>
> There are errors to the X3DJSONLD console if someone wants me to copy and
> paste.
>
> If you want me to check in code for this into x3dom/andreasplesch's
> gh-pages branch, let me know.  I only made change to the
> PrototypeExpander.js code, which effectively disabled the JSON proto
> expander, see below patch (patch to package.json unnecessary).
> diff --git a/package.json b/package.json
> index e1e0d501..7043f4f5 100644
> --- a/package.json
> +++ b/package.json
> @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
>    },
>    "scripts": {
>      "test": "echo \"Error: no test specified\" && exit 1",
> -    "build": "node ./build/src-builder.js",
> +    "build": "node --trace-warnings ./build/src-builder.js",
>      "lint": "eslint \"src/**/*.js\"",
>      "lint-fix": "eslint --fix \"src/**/*.js\""
>    },
> diff --git a/src/util/json/PrototypeExpander.js
> b/src/util/json/PrototypeExpander.js
> index 9bf64e6a..fc1e87e0 100644
> --- a/src/util/json/PrototypeExpander.js
> +++ b/src/util/json/PrototypeExpander.js
> @@ -740,6 +740,8 @@ x3dom.PROTOS.prototype = {
>
>      prototypeExpander : function ( file, object )
>      {
> +           // Use Andreas' proto code
> +           /*
>          this.protos = {};
>          this.names = {};
>          this.protoField = {};
> @@ -756,6 +758,7 @@ x3dom.PROTOS.prototype = {
>          object = this.flattener( object );
>          // console.error("SCRIPTS", JSON.stringify(this.scriptField));
>          // console.error("PROTOS", JSON.stringify(this.protoField, null,
> 2));
> +           */
>          return object;
>      },
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 2:38 PM John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm showing X_ITE sort of working, select rubikFurnace.json on the below
>> linked page.  Perhaps it's the conversion to/from JSON that makes it work?
>> Or perhaps the JSON proto expander? Turning off the proto expander shows
>> spheres for X_ITE/JSON, but green cubes for X_ITE XML/DOM.  It appears that
>> X_ITE/JSON/Protos/rubikFurnace needs some work which X3DJSONLD/proto
>> expander magically fixes. I usually run with proto expansion enabled, so I
>> wouldn't normally catch this error!   Thanks for the bug report!
>>
>> https://coderextreme.net/X3DJSONLD/src/main/html/index.html
>>
>> This uses your netlify version of x3dom.
>>
>> Pasting XML into the above page with proto expansion on, only the
>> X3DOM/XML/DOM version fails.  Other versions show green cubes. Without the
>> proto expansion, the previous example mentioned fails, but the JSON X_ITE
>> version fails with white cubes.  Loading XML with a local server shows no
>> differences.  I guess I could check the console next.  Looks okay.
>>
>> After working on t1.json for a while (see your x3dom issue related to
>> proto expander), I noticed that my changes broke some of the rubik*'s
>> examples.  I was not successful at making both t1.json and rubik.json
>> working.  I don't know if that helps or not.  Making the .x3d versions of
>> these examples work may be tricky.
>>
>> I am following your lead on renaming "sphere" to "sphereproto" in
>> rubik.x3d
>>
>> I will start testing with your netlify version:
>>
>> Here is my proto check page with netlify (all examples seem to work, json
>> proto expander on):
>> http://coderextreme.net/X3DJSONLD/src/main/html/x3domproto.html for JSON.
>>
>> Here's the equivalent for XML Inlines (please try to get this page or
>> similar working like the previous!) with netlify.
>> https://coderextreme.net/X3DJSONLD/src/main/html/xmlproto.html
>>
>> The two files should be checked into github for your editing convenience.
>>
>> The xmlproto.html is much better with a locally built x3dom (gh-pages
>> branch) than the remote netlify version.  You might want to update the
>> netlify version?
>>
>> Note the presence of a Script in the flowerproto.  I'm not expecting that
>> to work yet.  It might be fun to get it working, though, which I have kind
>> of done:
>> https://coderextreme.net/X3DJSONLD/src/main/html/proto.html (select
>> ../data/x3domflowers.x3d).
>>
>> If you've got a script instance per flower from your proto
>> implementation, it might be possible. One just needs to rename
>> "scripts"/implement the routes to and from "scripts" (whatever you want to
>> call them), I am pretty sure.  This becomes more and more doable, I am
>> thinking now, thanks to your effort with Protos.
>>
>> Don, can you add a check to the X3dToJson.xslt to throw a warning if a
>> proto declare name is the same as a tag?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 12:28 AM Andreas Plesch <andreasplesch at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, very helpful. Two issues came up. Since 'sphere' is a name of
>>> a regular node, but then was registered as a new proto node, things
>>> broke. Not sure what to do about it, maybe just documenting. HTML has
>>> a requirement for names of custom nodes to avoid such conflicts. I
>>> renamed the proto to protosphere which fixed the scene. rubikOnFire
>>> was interesting because it is the only example which has an IS
>>> connection to a node field of a ProtoInstance. I found a workaround
>>> which should work most of the time. rubikFurnace does not work, it
>>> shows just the default spheres, not sure. x-ite has the same problem
>>> with it, so maybe there is a deeper issue although I think the x3d
>>> looks ok.
>>>
>>> https://andreasplesch.github.io/x3dom/test/functional/proto/inline.html
>>>
>>> PS: I started to use a chromebook and I think x-ite and x3dom are the
>>> only x3d browsers for this platform. I looks like freeWrl for android
>>> would need to be updated to work on it. I am getting used to the
>>> touchscreen,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 9:38 PM John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Here is an example to try:
>>> >
>>> https://github.com/coderextreme/X3DJSONLD/blob/master/src/main/data/rubik.x3d
>>> >
>>> > Other rubik*.x3d examples in same folder may be useful too, but I can
>>> no longer remember all the differences.   I know all shapes should be the
>>> same in the result, cylinder results are not correct and there are 27
>>> shapes in the result.
>>> >
>>> > The result of the one in the email should be 27 spheres.
>>> >
>>> > John
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 6:23 PM Andreas Plesch <
>>> andreasplesch at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I also start to think the main reason for the ExternProto fields is to
>>> >> enable easier and more performant loading by browsers, using a
>>> >> template and fill in the details later approach.
>>> >>
>>> >> I expanded my working example list to a satisfactory number for x3dom
>>> >> and will start to clean up and refactor a bit. Almost each example
>>> >> needed additional attention to the processing so no doubt there are
>>> >> gaps in coverage which soon will be discovered by actual usage. But as
>>> >> long as the complexity in terms of nesting and async. loading does not
>>> >> exceed  the examples, the behaviour should be fairly robust. The #name
>>> >> syntax works. The helicopter (Example16) is fairly complex and works
>>> >> now, after replacing the script with event utilities. The LogoLetter
>>> >> example unearthed another interesting bug which triggered exponential
>>> >> doubling of shapes. Some castle engine examples stress the limits,
>>> >> mostly by redefining DEFs (usually a no go) but do something
>>> >> reasonable now.
>>> >>
>>> >> The approach taken is to register actual new node types (which
>>> >> internally use other nodes) and then use more or less the regular node
>>> >> creation and instancing for the ProtoInstances, after converting them
>>> >> to a more readable syntax. I think this works as well as expanding
>>> >> templates and feels more natural but tends to uncover implicit
>>> >> assumptions in the code. For example, x3dom assumes that Material as a
>>> >> X3DAppearanceChild node is always a child of an Appearance node. With
>>> >> protos, it can be a child of another node as well. So I had to
>>> >> eventually start to use a try/catch clause.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks for maintaining the example, they are critical to get uniform
>>> behaviours.
>>> >>
>>> >> Here are the updated working examples:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> https://andreasplesch.github.io/x3dom/test/functional/proto/inline.html
>>> >>
>>> >> I may be interested in trying a few more examples without script nodes
>>> >> but I think these are a good selection.
>>> >>
>>> >> Any feedback welcome,
>>> >>
>>> >> -Andreas
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:09 PM Don Brutzman <brutzman at nps.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On 6/26/2020 10:50 AM, Andreas Plesch wrote:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Thanks for thinking this through. I am not seeing any
>>> inconsistencies,
>>> >> > > only redundancies which could invite authoring errors in the first
>>> >> > > place.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > I think for now, x3dom will have to go by the garbage in, garbage
>>> out
>>> >> > > principle, meaning that inconsistent field statements may cause
>>> >> > > problems. The spec. actually requires consistent naming.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > agreed
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:06 AM Don Brutzman <brutzman at nps.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> Checking ProtoDeclare and ExternProtoDeclare can be tricky, but
>>> I think it is correctly defined.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> My understanding of the intent of that section was to prevent
>>> unexpected errors in the case of
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> a. ProtoDeclare defined,
>>> >> > >> b. ExternProtoDeclare and ProtoInstance example work and are
>>> deployed,
>>> >> > >> c. ProtoDeclare subsequently adds some additional fields or
>>> changes default field values,
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > How would that happen ? Externally, by editing the ProtoDeclare
>>> in the
>>> >> > > referenced file ? That would seem like a situation which should
>>> not be
>>> >> > > in the scope of x3d.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > correct.  have seen this occur with long-term re-use of valuable
>>> prototypes that continue to evolve, it is important to find external
>>> instances or modify/evolve them with backwards compatibility in mind.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > >> d. ExternProtoDeclare and ProtoInstance example still work OK
>>> though new ProtoDeclare is retrieved at runtime.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Hm, is there a requirement to reload already loaded ProtoDeclare's
>>> >> > > when a new ProtoInstance is added to a scene ?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > no, that would be dangerous/unexpected.  no hidden dependencies
>>> here, just stepping through typical use.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > >> Certainly the browser loading the original/updated ProtoDeclare
>>> must honor the behavior defined therein, including default values.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> If the field interfaces within the ExternProtoDeclare (which
>>> only contain name, type, accessType and not default values) are different,
>>> that would be an error.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > yes, exactly, so why have those field interfaces ?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Having ExternProtoDeclare allows a browser to load and set up all
>>> connections with type information in mind, allowing remote loading of
>>> ProtoDeclare to occur in parallel.  Thus performance speedup.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > >> As above, if default values within the ProtoDeclare change, this
>>> has no impact on ExternProtoDeclare field definitions because they do not
>>> list default values.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > I am not sure how the default values could change.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > long-term evolution of a published prototype in a library, for
>>> example.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > >> When a ProtoInstance provides fieldValue initializations, they
>>> of course supersede whatever the default might be in the ProtoDeclare.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> ... so I think this all hangs together cleanly without
>>> contradiction or ambiguity.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Agreed, just potentially confusing redundancy.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > it takes some practice to get familiar since the capabilities are
>>> powerful.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > >> Implementation-support notes:
>>> >> > >> - InstantReality handles cases well, although console warnings
>>> sometimes include false positives.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > I am using view3dscene and freeWrl for testing. Most examples work
>>> >> > > well though freeWrl seems to have a problem with the nested spin
>>> group
>>> >> > > prototype example.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > As an author I avoid nested prototypes, they seem less robust and
>>> more likely to fail.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > >> - X3D-Edit has a feature to check ExternProtoDeclare interfaces
>>> against ProtoDeclare interfaces.
>>> >> > >> - Utility methods for such checking would be a good feature to
>>> add to our Java, Python and JavaScript libraries.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> Loading and checking for such consistency is typically not
>>> performed by any of our Quality Assurance (QA) tools since they tend to
>>> perform validations in an offline manner.  For X3DOM, I think this gap in
>>> testing coverage means that you should carefully check for consistency
>>> because if ProtoDeclare and ExternProtoDeclare differ then an incompatible
>>> interface is expected and model errors are likely.
>>> >> > >>
>>> >> > >> Improvements always welcome.  Thanks for close scrutiny and
>>> thanks for tackling this super valuable capability for X3DOM.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > You can follow progress here:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> https://andreasplesch.github.io/x3dom/test/functional/proto/inline.html#Front
>>> >> >
>>> >> > impressive setup
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > It will be interesting to see how Protos can be used in
>>> combination
>>> >> > > with web js based templating.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > -Andreas
>>> >> >
>>> >> > thanks for taking the time to get this part right now.  that will
>>> make future HTML5-X3D4 patterns a lot more stable and understandable.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > >> On 6/23/2020 6:10 PM, Andreas Plesch wrote:
>>> >> > >>> ...
>>> >> > >>>> The next step would be to support the ExternProtoDeclare
>>> statement.
>>> >> > >>>> The main question I have is about the function of the
>>> additional field
>>> >> > >>>> statements under ExternProtoDeclare.
>>> >> > >>>>
>>> >> > >>>> - Do they replace ProtoInterface field statements ? (No.)
>>> >> > >>>> - Is the ProtoInterface element still required in the external
>>> file ? (Yes.)
>>> >> > >>>> - Are they listed just for convenience (for the author and the
>>> browser) ? (Yes?)
>>> >> > >>>> - Can they be ignored ? (Yes?)
>>> >> > >>>
>>> >> > >>> I did find the clause "The names and types of the fields of the
>>> >> > >>> interface declaration shall be a subset of those defined in the
>>> >> > >>> implementation." in 4.4.5.2 EXTERNPROTO interface semantics.
>>> This
>>> >> > >>> means that an ExternProto can restrict access to fields by not
>>> listing
>>> >> > >>> them in its field elements. So they should not be ignored. On
>>> the
>>> >> > >>> other hand a browser which ignores them would still generate
>>> the same
>>> >> > >>> behaviour, minus warnings or errors in an ill-constructed scene
>>> when a
>>> >> > >>> ProtoInstance is trying to set non-accessible fields.
>>> >> > >>>
>>> >> > >>> So I think as a first cut, it is ok to just load the external
>>> >> > >>> Protodeclaration and give it the name of the ExternProto and
>>> not doing
>>> >> > >>> much or anything with the field elements.
>>> >> > >>>
>>> >> > >>>> Thanks for any insight,
>>> >> > >>>>
>>> >> > >>>> -Andreas
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > all the best, Don
>>> >> > --
>>> >> > Don Brutzman  Naval Postgraduate School, Code USW/Br
>>> brutzman at nps.edu
>>> >> > Watkins 270,  MOVES Institute, Monterey CA 93943-5000 USA
>>>  +1.831.656.2149
>>> >> > X3D graphics, virtual worlds, navy robotics
>>> http://faculty.nps.edu/brutzman
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Andreas Plesch
>>> >> Waltham, MA 02453
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> x3d-public mailing list
>>> >> x3d-public at web3d.org
>>> >> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andreas Plesch
>>> Waltham, MA 02453
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20200628/0e094f47/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the x3d-public mailing list