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

[brett h. <bha...@ya...>]

Hello Matthias and Bernie,

Unfortunately, i have been very busy with other work in the past couple months, and i have not yet
had time to finish my version of the ODE wrapper.  I still plan to come back to it, but this may
not be for a coule months.  In the mean time, if someone beats me to the punch using another
method, i'll gladly be using their binding when it comes out, and fix bugs in it when i have time.

If not, then i plan to move forward using Boost Python to wrap the c++ wrappers.  Wrapping a
wrapper is not ideal, but from the perspective where several python wrappers must be created and
maintained, it makes sense that they all use the same wrapping language.  I am also maintaining
the PyOSG wrappers, and soon i'll be doing the Cassowary wrappers.  I have looked at the Pyrex
documentation, and it is impressive and has some real elegance.  So it is a blancing act, do we
shoehorn ODE to fit into the Boost model, or do it the clean and quick way with Pyrex?  

Thoughts?
Btw, is anybody in the San Francisco area?

-brett

--- Bernie Roehl <br...@ec...> wrote:
> 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 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail