[GEM-dev] pf/pdp/3dp in Gem

[Johannes M Zmoelnig]

Tom Schouten wrote:

>>
>>i'd rather have "pdp" somewhere in the name, as [gem.set] and [gem.get] 
>>could be anything (not necessarily related to pure data packets)
>>
>>for me the most simple names i can think of right now are
>>[gem_pdp] : gem->pdp (or probably [gem_3dp] ?)
>>[pdp_gem] : pdp->gem
>>
> 
> 
> since it's really only 'get' and 'set' (just about exchainging data
> with a gem render chain) i think this should be clear in the name.
> 
> the object qualify as 'gem chain objects' not pdp objects. so [pdp_xxx]
> seems confusing.

true.
still i think that "pdp" should be in the name too, as [gem_set] 
wouldn't necessarily have something to do with pdp packages.
so probably [gem_pdpout} and [gem_pdpin] would be more apropriate ?
(or [gem_pdp.out] and [gem_pdp.in])


> a getter would look like:
> 
> [gemhead]
> |
> [gem.get pixbuf]
> |	       |
> |              [pdp_gain 2.0]
> |              |
> |              [pdp_blur]
> |              |
> [gem.set pixbuf]
> |
> [pix_texture]
> |
> [square]
> 
> 
> this would fork off the pixbuf as a pdp packet,
> then process it using pdp_gain and pdp_blur, and
> insert it back into gemstate.

thanks for the clarification

> 
> 
> 
> 
>>and the pdp packet would just hold (additionally) the data of the 
>>gem_list (?)
>>
>>and i guess, that [gem.get] should *not* output the gem_list anymore ?
>>
> 
> 
> i think it should, because the get/set objects are really renderchain
> objects.

which is clear from your sketch.


so the templates are almost done; just want to settle the name before i 
check them in



mfg.a.sdr
IOhannes