Hi Andy, On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Andy Skinner <andy.skin...@mathworks.com>wrote:
> Robert was at one time (Novemeber, December) working with removing some > more static initializers. We really need to get up to date on OSG, and we > need to get rid of the initializers. If Robert was able to complete that > (he hadn't had time as of December), it would be a big help. (We want to > use the osgViewer library, but the initializers caused problems for us.) > I'm afraid I've only done part of the work on replacing the static initializers, the only areas that I've cleaned up the ones that I was tackling during other work. Curiously only yesterday I was starting to think about what's left to do for 3.0 and the static initializers was one of own personally todo items. Do this work as a community task might be appropriate, a different thread would be the place to do this. Even if he was able to do it, I don't know whether the changes were small > enough for your purposes. But for us to take another step on 2.8.x (as > "stable" instead of "developer") would be comforting. > I suspect the changes for static initializers would often be a bit too intrusive as it'll come with other changes. One could possible try and tackle the task for the 2.8 branch and 2.9.x series separately, but.. this comes with more resources needed. If you can dive in a help out then it might make it more possible. My guess is that Paul already has more than enough tasks to do to put 2.8.3 together without other tasks pilling on top. If a set of non intrusive changes can be supplied to Paul in a form that he can easily review and merge without risky stability or portability then it'll have a better chance of making it in. With the 2.9.x series the scope is still more open to more intrusive changes. Robert.
_______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
