Re: [Pyode-user] Status of the wrappers?

[Bernie R. <br...@ec...>]

For what it's worth, I'm using the version at ira.uka.de and I find it 
works well.  I've modified it slightly to expose a couple of additional 
methods that I needed access to (setCategoryBits() and setCollideBits()), 
and found that it was quite easy to do even though I'd never used Pyrex 
before.  I'm also building PyODE with the most recent version of ODE (0.5).

The main reasons I chose the ira.uka.de implementation were the fact that 
it had some nice tutorials that made it very easy to get up to speed on 
using it, and it provided a way to implement the near_callback() in Python 
(which I needed for my application).  I'm not clear as to whether the other 
implementations provide this capability or not.

Certainly the fact that ODE is written in C (as opposed to C++) makes it a 
very natural fit for the Pyrex-based approach.  The C++ interface to ODE is 
essentially just a wrapper, and the idea of wrapping a wrapper is 
unappealing to me.  With the Pyrex approach, you get an object-oriented 
interface (which I consider essential) while still using a single layer of 
wrapper.

In any case...  perhaps a good way to kick-start this process is to 
identify what specific functionality it is that we need that is not 
currently available (e.g. trimesh support, which is high on my list) and 
discuss how to add it.  If turns out that converging on a single 
implementation is impractical for whatever reason, it would at least be 
nice to provide some interchangeability between the three.

And yes, I'd be willing to put some time into actually writing code (as 
opposed to just commenting on work that other people have already done or 
will be doing).

Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts, and the status off all 
three implementations...




At 11:46 PM 6/20/2004 +0200, Matthias Baas wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I would like to ask about the status of both ODE wrappers, Timothy's
>original wrappers and Brett's rewrite. Are there any plans to continue
>any of them? I suppose you know that I also have a wrapper
>(http://i31www.ira.uka.de/~baas/pyode/), but it's also quite out of date
>and, probably as everybody else here, I don't have much time to maintain
>it. I've recently got a couple of mails from people asking about when
>there will be a new version including trimesh support.
>That's why I was reminded that it would really be much better if there
>was only *one* binding with several people behind it.
>So is there still any interest in creating a "unified" ODE binding?
>
>Cheers,
>
>- Matthias -
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.Net email is sponsored by The 2004 JavaOne(SM) Conference
>Learn from the experts at JavaOne(SM), Sun's Worldwide Java Developer
>Conference, June 28 - July 1 at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, CA
>REGISTER AND SAVE! http://java.sun.com/javaone/sf Priority Code NWMGYKND
>_______________________________________________
>Pyode-user mailing list
>Pyo...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pyode-user

--
   Bernie Roehl
   University of Waterloo Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering
   Mail: br...@ec...   Voice: (519) 888-4567 x 2607 [work]
   URL: http://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~broehl