It depends on what you mean by applications.
J3D is based on programming and very low-level
syntax manipulation (such as 'capability bits' for exp.)
It requires detailed code to build an application.
Perhaps in future there will be tools and/or 'compositional syntaxes'
to obviate the need for programming, but that's not the present.
It could use a declarative format to complement it's programmatic
format (not to mention some sensible J3D-Player 'pre-positioning'
strategy in Browsers)
VRML is essentially a declarative format with an afterthought
of programmatic 'surface' via EAI and JSAI and ECMAScript
in Scripts. IMHO it's easier to compose scenes in VRML than
in J3D and the language is richer - better texture control,
Backgrounds, hierarchical encapsulation (PROTO's),
generally easier to write and build (partly due to maturity and
availability of tools, but mainly due to it's declarative design.)
X3D is in formation as we speak. In my view (as one of the
designers) it will emerge as a Component composition syntax
with several, possibly distinct, roles - one being a small Core
not requiring a 'plug-in' (i.e. an applet), another being a
VRML97 Component subset. However, most generally I think
it will most precisely be defined as a Component Interface Model
enabling interoperability, and a declarative Component composition
syntax in XML. In other words, it will have the elegance and usability
of a declarative XML composition syntax combined with
precise programmatic control encapsulated in Components and
Frameworks of Components, for example, JavaBeans.
You, and perhaps others, may be interested in a design
direction for X3D based on a Component Interface Model
and a declarative XML syntax for composition.
See Jamal:
http://www.web3D.org/TaskGroups/x3d/lucidActual/jamal/Jamal.html
Best wishes.
Mark
Mark Rudolph Phd.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lucid Actual
Montreal
http://www.biorococo.com
Thomas Bendig wrote:
> Hi Anselm,
> I don't think so. These technologies are targetting the same or at least very
>overlapping application areas.
> I think, every application done in VRML could also have been done based on Java3D.
>On the other hand I think that it's no problem to build very complex applications in
>Java3D but in VRML such complex applications are very hard to handle because of the
>interfaces to other technologies (java, javascript, eai, ...).
>
> So I would say VRML is a nice geometry file format, but for building complex
>applications Java3D ist the better technology.
>
> And even those people who don't what to touch code (designers, architects, ...)
>could use standard Java3D applets which understand their specific file formats (max,
>3ds, dxf, ...)
>
> Or am I wrong?
>
> Thanks for your answer.
>
> Thomas Bendig
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.echtzeit.de
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anselm Hook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Donnerstag, 9. September 1999 18:16
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Re: [JAVA3D] Java3D distribution with browsers
> >
> >
> > X3D and VRML are totally complementary to Java3D. They will only
> > help each other.
> >
> > >
> > >May I ask you (all) another question?
> > >What do you think about X3D and VRML in relation to Java3D?
> > >Will Java3D make it obsolete?
> > >
>
> ===========================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
> of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
