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

[John Carlson]

I guess I should ask whether proto expansion is valuable enough to remain a
checkbox in X3DJSONLD.   Anyone?

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 9:39 PM Andreas Plesch <andreasplesch at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think that could be helpful. I do plan on merging the proto support
> into the dev x3dom version. But it needs to be pretty robust. For
> example, people will experiment with dom manipulation of protoinstance
> field values or even protobody nodes, and expect something to happen,
> like changing all instances by changing the proto definition, after
> the fact. Also adding a new protodeclaration to an existing scene
> needs testing but should work. Removing one is less critical.
>
> Thanks, -Andreas
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 9:08 PM John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Andreas, I’m just checking to see if you’ve removed the JSON proto
> expander from the code.  Would you like me to pursue removing the expander
> and test your code after it gets through the JSONParser?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:20 AM Andreas Plesch <andreasplesch at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am switching to a new implementation of Protos in x3dom. Most basic
> proto examples in
> >>
> >> https://andreasplesch.github.io/x3dom/test/functional/proto/inline.html
> >>
> >> started to work with the new implementation but routing in and out of a
> protoinstance is still missing.
> >>
> >> The new implementation defines a new node type for each ProtoDeclare
> which then can be used like a native node. As a consequence, it will be
> possible to optionally use a different syntax for ProtoInstance nodes. One
> can just the the regular syntax for nodes:
> >>
> >> < nodename fieldname="fieldvalue" >
> >>   < childnode />
> >> </ nodename >
> >>
> >> This is more similar to the vrml encoding of protoinstances.
> >>
> >> -Andreas
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 5:34 PM Andreas Plesch <andreasplesch at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I could identify the scoping and other issues to get working spin
> group and proto_nested examples:
> >>>
> >>>
> https://5edeabda853f6d72e3a951a8--x3dom.netlify.app/examples/functional/proto/inline.html
> >>>
> https://andreasplesch.github.io/x3dom/test/functional/proto/inline.html
> >>>
> >>> The scoping issue with spin group was that a DEF in a ProtoInstance
> node fieldValue belongs to the namescope of the parent of the
> ProtoInstance, not just to the namescope of the ProtoInstance itself. Only
> the DEF names used in the ProtoBody are restricted to the namescope of the
> corresponding ProtoInstance.
> >>>
> >>> For the proto_nested example, there was a need to identify the case
> when a ProtoInstance has ISing, eg. is used inside a ProtoBody of another
> Proto which connectd to the fields of the ProtoInstance. As far as I
> remember Castle Engine does something similar. It is not beautiful, and I
> am not sure the bolted on solution works with deeper ISing.
> >>>
> >>> I may try a few more of the castle demo models. Perhaps there are more
> fairly easy to fix problems.
> >>>
> >>> Any feedback still very welcome,
> >>>
> >>> -Andreas
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:56 PM Andreas Plesch <
> andreasplesch at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Looking at harder, more nested examples revealed quite a few problems
> which are only partially fixed here:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://andreasplesch.github.io/x3dom/test/functional/proto/inline.html
> >>>>
> https://5ede6856ca50c48058af6ed6--x3dom.netlify.app/examples/functional/proto/inline.html
> >>>>
> >>>> This includes the spin group example and a few castle demo models.
> Fixes include more careful parsing, route normalization and proto
> declaration transfer into child name scopes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Spin group almost works but has trouble with DEF/USE name scoping of
> the TouchSensor (a different scoping problem than the table2/leg2 problem
> in proto_nested). Incidentally, the TouchSensor does not seem to react in
> freeWrl also.
> >>>>
> >>>> I may try to describe the DEF/USE name scoping issue in spin group in
> another request for clarification.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think it may be time to scrap this attempt and start over with a
> different approach since the code is now too complex. A new approach would
> probably define a new ProtoInstanceNode which fits better into the existing
> x3dom infrastructure.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Andreas
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 3:24 PM Andreas Plesch <
> andreasplesch at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I added an example of a Prototype generating an output event, an
> >>>>> IntegerTrigger which only triggers upon receiving true:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://andreasplesch.github.io/x3dom/test/functional/proto/inline.html
> >>>>>
> https://5eda866f96703e0007fba0af--x3dom.netlify.app/examples/functional/proto/inline.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The implementation adds forwarding of internal node generated events
> >>>>> to the ProtoInstance pseudo node, using the internal x3dom route
> >>>>> mechanism.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  I think that concludes this effort for Prototype support in x3dom.
> >>>>> Most functionality should be available.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Missing features are
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - DOM based modification of ProtoInstance field values (probably
> possible)
> >>>>> - routing of node value fields (in x3dom in general), but it is
> >>>>> possible to use ProtoInstance fieldValue for node values.
> >>>>> - no Script node support (in x3dom in general), unrelated although
> >>>>> Scripts are very often used in Prototypes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There are no plans from my side to add support for these missing
> features.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Builds for testing more thoroughly are available here:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://5eda866f96703e0007fba0af--x3dom.netlify.app/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In particular, nested situations need testing, eg. ProtoInstances in
> >>>>> ProtoDeclaration, ProtoInstances in ProtoInstance fields, and
> >>>>> ProtoDeclarations in ProtoInstances (if that makes sense).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I should check the castle library of examples.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> After a period of testing, ExternProto support should be relatively
> >>>>> less complicated to provide.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Looking forward to any reports,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Andreas
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 1:56 PM Andreas Plesch <
> andreasplesch at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20200626/8390e04f/attachment-0001.html>