[osg-users] Node::Description into a generalized property mechanism?

Chris 'Xenon' Hanson xenon at alphapixel.com
Mon Nov 30 08:30:56 PST 2009


Ulrich Hertlein wrote:
> Hi Chris,
> have you noticed the "Suggestion: Add components in nodes (aggregation)"
> thread from around 29/10/2009?  


  I had missed it, but it sounds very interesting.

> Of course this doesn't yet solve your problem with there being only one
> user-data field. The problem I see with adding a new meta-data field to
> objects is what happens with name conflicts when two plugins/programs
> want to use the same 'key' name?  In that case we'd need to introduce
> namespaces (like a map of string->KeyValueMap) so that each plugin can
> have its own key/value map?

  Well, that is a potential problem, but I think I'd just force the problem into the hands
of the developer by mandating some sort of long key name. Java forces classnames to be
unique by prepending them with the domain name of the developer, in reverse:
com.alphapixel.fooclass

  We could mandate that you can't just use a key name of "size" or "x" or whatever, it
would have to be "mylibraryname.x" or "myloaderpluginname.extrametadata" or something.

> Thoughts?

  I like your idea, but it's more than I personally need. I can just use the description
field as it is, since nobody defines any guidelines about how data is formatted in there.
your proposal, while attractive, is a much bigger project.

  Did you get any other interest in it?

> /ulrich

-- 
Chris 'Xenon' Hanson, omo sanza lettere                  Xenon AlphaPixel.com
PixelSense Landsat processing now available! http://www.alphapixel.com/demos/
"There is no Truth. There is only Perception. To Perceive is to Exist." - Xen


More information about the osg-users mailing list