Re: Ideas on the future of Quesa.

[Jose' C. <cru...@ce...>]

Il giorno 30/nov/04, alle 17:35, Roger Holmes ha scritto:


> However, apart from renderers, how many of us have actually
> extended Quesa, I have but I would be very happy to modify my
> extension into clean C++ classes linked into Quesa instead of the
> horrid mess of meta handlers and multiple functions which
> were necessary with the closed source library QD3D.
>


mostly agreed whith the missing part, but for virtual functions I've to 
disagree
the exposed functions (those with signature) should be implemented via 
custom vtable, and we should also leave the hash table in place to 
extend existing classes with non anticipated pluggable methods

why?
one are the canonical plug-ins (renderers, file formats (custom 
attributes are in another league))
second is the possibility to extend the current objects much as the 
3dmf writer does

of course internally we can code it as virtual functions, but there's 
no point then because we have to call them via the custom vtable

or you can found a better way to do this...


Pax et Bonum

# dott. Jose' Cruanyes Aguilar  -  C.E. Soft srl
#  Pzza. Firenze,4 MILANO  -  XX Settembre 10, CREMONA
#   02,33603122                0372,460602