[x3d-public] x3dom prototypes, extern proto
John Carlson
yottzumm at gmail.com
Mon Jun 29 09:11:53 PDT 2020
How does one handle scripts inside a ProtoBody (multiple instances of the
same script) is what next on our (or just my) plate.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:04 AM Andreas Plesch <andreasplesch at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Nothing is done to script elements. So the ones with a vrmlscript ( or
> any non html standard ) mime type are ignored, and regular script
> elements executed by the browser as dom scripts.
>
> -Andreas
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:57 AM John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah! Andreas! Once you clean up, I will attempt to add some kind of
> internal scripting to X3DOM. I’m curious though, what do you currently do
> with Protos with Scripts? Where does the script go?
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:31 AM Andreas Plesch <andreasplesch at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> After too many hours in the debugger, I added not too many lines to
> >> better deal with changes to node value fields, in particular on how to
> >> properly transfer these from the proto instance node to the underlying
> >> native (or other proto) node.
> >>
> >> rubikFurnace.x3d should work now, in parallel with the logo letter
> >> example which was the main challenge.
> >>
> >> https://andreasplesch.github.io/x3dom/test/functional/proto/inline.html
> >> https://5efa06157960e80256fa5d6b--x3dom.netlify.app/
> >>
> https://5efa06157960e80256fa5d6b--x3dom.netlify.app/examples/functional/proto/inline.html
> >>
> >> I believe this concludes my substantive efforts. I will now focus on
> >> separating out the proto code to a new file and some clean up.
> >>
> >> Andreas
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 6:40 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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/20200629/1d8b6860/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the x3d-public
mailing list