On 11/29/2012 04:17 PM, InteractiveMesh [via jogamp] wrote:
> *J3D : 3D Graphics API on the Java(TM) Platform - A Java 3D(TM) API 1.5 Fork
> As mentioned in this thread
> http://forum.jogamp.org/Required-JOGL-Jars-to-run-Java-3D-1-6-td4027211.html I
> ask you to test this J3D jogl-release especially on the Mac/JRE 7 platform.
> Canvas3D now implements the OffscreenLayerOption interface, which might solve
> the known issue. Please check the console for:
> J3D/JOGL : glProfile = GL4bc Implementation = 2.0-b66-20121101
> J3D/JOGL : createNewContext 0 : Canvas3D shallUseOffscreenLayer
> = false/true
> J3D/JOGL : createNewContext 1 : JAWTWindow isOffscreenLayerSurfaceEnabled =
> Jogl's offscreen rendering is still based on Pbuffer and will now return an
> image with upper left corner at (0,0).
> The download
> http://www.interactivemesh.org/off/j3d/J3D-API-1.6-Rel-1.6.0-beta-1-jogl.zip includes
> - J3D-API-1.6-Rel-1.6.0-beta-1.txt, what's new etc.
> - j3d-1.6-preliminary-javadoc.zip
> - j3d-all-jogl.jar, encompasses 1.6.0-beta-1 core-jogl, utils, and vecmath
> classes to run J3D on the jogl-pipeline; copyright and license notices
*jumping in* .. just to put-in my 2 cents here, not as a janitor/policemen :)
I _strongly_ concur w/ Harvey and Julien in the issue of your efforts here!
Apologize in advance for my not so diplomatic writing below!
If this is _not_ about your the 'other J3D fork', please simply ignore the following :)
Forking J3D or JOGL [or whatever] is OK in general, no problem.
Currently Harvey, Julien and others stabilizing the J3D work.
Forking and hence pulling the scarce resources away from this effort
IMHO is very much ill advised and not polite, especially since this was
mentioned already .. etc.
You made it clear that you have your own agenda [read: goals],
which is fine and welcome in the spirit of our open source environment.
As already discussed here, your goals are not shared [yet] w/ Harvey, Julien and me neither.
IMO you goals of using and creating native backends makes no sense at all.
I find it troubling to disturb our common efforts to produce a
stable J3D release in a team effort allowing previous J3D users to benefit from.
Maybe I am wrong here and I misunderstand the whole situation,
however - if not so, it would be enough to simply announce your
projects homepage, goals and means of communication - instead of actively
trying to _ASK_ people to download your stuff and testing it.
Why would this upset people?
Because it's distracting, diluting energy and resources and for sure
does not seem to be productive.
You also seem to use our resources to push your agenda here :)
Sorry for the harsh words, _again_: just my personal & strong opinion here.
[Not having the police hat on]
Any sourcecode available for that? While I'm not particularly interested in testing, if you can point me at any useful
changes you've made, I'd love to pull them in so we're at least working from as close a comon base as possible.
J3D? What does it mean? Is it the same thing than JUniversal3D? If your public API is different of Java3D one, using a completely different name made sense.
I completely agree with Sven, he's even more "kind" than me. It's open source, do whatever you want but please be smart. This section is about JogAmp's Java3D Continuation, not about all forks of Java3D. Of course, you can speak about your projects while we clearly see the relationship with the subject of this section but I don't like this confusion. The purpose of this thread is not to promote other forks and it could harm our work.
English is not my mother tongue. As far as I know, "I ask you" != "I demand you", it is not authoritative, maybe there is a small lack of politeness. Please can you tell me which known issue your change is intended to fix? Please can you show me the "diff" so that I understand your fix?
On 11/30/2012 06:18 PM, InteractiveMesh [via jogamp] wrote:
> "The purpose of this thread is not to promote other forks and it could harm
> our work."
> Sorry. Your forum, your rules. Please delete this topic.
BTW: I 'simply' noted my personal opinion
while emphasizing not being the police squad in regards to 'speech' here :)
Of course, so does Julien.
For sure your work is still relevant in general iff it is [still] open source
w/ source code available. You just have proven such effort in the other thread
where you fix the OSX offscreen case, KUDOS.
While I _personally_ dislike a premature fork for professional reasons
similar to what Harvey has mentioned, I don't feel comfortable to
censor anybody here, _as_ long it is relevant with source code available
under a free license.
Maybe I was simply missing the 'source code link' and your actual cooperation,
which you have proven. Yeah, sometimes it's not easy to be a cop :)