2009/6/23 Mathias Fröhlich > Well, from my point of view. I would prefer to have these. > The reason is to have something self contained here. > Sure we already rely on osg at many places. But if I build an aplication on > simgear, I hope to have simgear classes there. SGProperties are simgear > classes, and if you use the property system you may not want to rely on > osg. > > ... also from my past experience switching to an other scenegraph, I would > prefer to see no osg::.. references at all in flightgear - except some few > viewer related stuff. But the simulation part of FlightGear should not need > to > know that the viewer runs on osg/OpenGL. > So looking at SimGear as a utility library for simulation applications, > this > make sense from my point of view ... > > So, even if you will need some more glue code, I would prefer to avoid osg > classes in simgears parts that are not scenegraph related. > The property system is such an area IMO ...
This is an interesting point. I also use simgear and the property system in a variety of other projects, so whatever we do, we shouldn't make these low level libraries depend on OSG (which isn't available for instance on my little embedded UAV controller.) Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
