Hi Allen,
Allen Bierbaum wrote:
>> I think Dirk's writing on the wiki sums up my opinion pretty good as
>> well, and they don't really agree with your point here. We need to
>> settle on concepts and names. What we have is:
>>
>> Examples: 5-10 lines of code, preferrably inline in the class dox.
>> Perhaps referenced to from a larger 'tutorial document'?
>>
>>
> To me this is not much of an example. It is just a code snippet. It
> doesn't really show the capabilities IMHO. I would prefer to just link
> from the classes to more extensive examples. See my comments on the wiki.
Honestly I think the main difference between examples and demos is the
amount of test data.
>> Tutorials: small but complete executables that larger concepts (like
>> your "full examples" above), with small data. Usually less than a meg.
>> Source could be referenced to from class dox.
>>
> I think of tutorials as showing a single concept for the purposes of
> teaching.
Agreement here, so.
> The big thing I see missing is a consensus on examples and the fallout
> from that. If examples end up being small pieces of code then we have
> lost 2 major things that we need IMHO.
>
> 1. Marketing demonstrations of new features. I know I have harped on
> this a lot, but it is vitally important. OpenSG has no marketing, zero,
> nada. We have tons of features and new ones all the time but nothing to
> demonstrate them. I want something in the standard build that shows
> these capabilities so when someone adds feature X, the very next day we
> can go to opengl.org and announce "OpenSG adds feature X, download the
> nightly from here and run Xexample."
Just showing the feature shouldn't taking a lot of code over what Marcus
and I described. For a good demo you need good data more than anything
else. What needs more work (maybe) is a demo that has a GUI to show with
and without the feature or something like that.
> 2. Examples for people to base real applications and that show real
> usage. snipets and tutorials only show a very simple way of using most
> code. In a "real" application it normally has to handle more issues and
> deal with more cases. We need applications like this for people to base
> their applications and look to for "examples" of using the code.
>
> Take a look at the examples directory in the OpenSceneGraph dist. It is
> exactly the type of thing I think we need for examples. They have 81
> examples of simple applications showing off and using the capabilities
> of OSG. This is what OpenSG needs.
Can you point out the ones that you think are most typical of what you
think we need? I've went through about half of them them now, and they
don't really do more than our tutorials (i.e. set up a rather simple
scene and draw it).
> If we still need little 5-10 line code snipets, that is fine, but I
> suggest making them part of something besides examples. Really
> something like that may be part of the unit tests.
Hm. Unit tests are really more targeted at self-running verification of
specific situations and features resp. parts of features. Examples are
more for interactive use and show a full feature.
Dirk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Opensg-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-users
