[osg-users] Development pathway

Jeremy Moles jeremy at emperorlinux.com
Wed Sep 3 12:47:28 PDT 2008

On Wed, 2008-09-03 at 09:44 +1200, Hartmut Seichter wrote:
> Hi there,
> now there is a new development line coming up I wanted to throw in some 
> thoughts which would be interesting to know for further development of 
> OSG (way beyond 2.7.x) and some of the infrastructure. As you might know 
> I am working on osgSWIG and osgART and a handful other software projects 
> which are used on client systems - so deployment and stability is one of 
> my main concerns.
> - documentation, there are numerous additions recently and in the past 
> like osgWidgets or osgManipulators which are very interesting but not as 
> interesting to reverse document the code - at least a "real" API 
> documentation would be sufficient
> - examples: I am also partly teaching computer graphics and an augmented 
> reality class which heavily rely on OSG. One of the problems I see the 
> students facing is that some of the examples are actually applications 
> and seem to have started simple and went off to show the most convoluted 
> brain-jogging way to achieve something simple - van der Rohe: Less is More
> On the deployment and integration side:
> - API additions which change ABI are not documented well: with osgSWIG I 
> am basically poking in the dark, waiting for SWIG to cough up the changes
> - do I assume right/wrong that API change involves an increment in 
> SOVERSION, it would make backwards compatibility easy
> And now the more deep down things, which I think would be interesting to 
> look at in a long term plan:
> - with the Mac OS X 10.4 - 10.5 disaster it should be clear that one 
> can't assume a certain implementation of OpenGL available and relying on 
> it on the front-end
> - this leads unevitably to OpenGL 3.x and OpenGL ES 2.0 (what happened 
> to the investigation of this?) on the horizon - which hints for hidden 
> backends as with ES there is no certainty of the actual implementation 
> of parts of the API - so you might need to roll your own depending on 
> the hardware detected
> - bundling math includes in one header to be able to exchange some 
> implementation (ie. floating point emulation)
> Sorry for the lengthy email. Objective is to get some discussion in the 
> OSG community - so please throw in you 2ct :)

I totally agree, and have been wanting to write osgWidget documentation
for a while. I wanted to create a PDF for this purpose in osgWidget, but
I'm pretty sure that doxygen comments would be more useful; at least, I
get the impression that is what most people use.

I've always been a code-looker myself, which is why I guess I took so
quickly to OSG. It's been a long time since I did anything other than
look at an example or the actual source to answer a question I had, but
I know this isn't necessarily the norm...

> Cheers,
> Hartmut

More information about the osg-users mailing list