[Bf-funboard] Re: OOPS-based Object Manager mock-up

Thorsten Wilms bf-funboard@blender.org
Mon, 8 Dec 2003 17:05:20 +0100


On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:15:48AM -0500, Karim Nassar wrote:

> >> Changes to a Parent's settings will change Children as
> >> well. Shown as the Primary Dependency is "Interactivity" which includes
> >> Visibility, Editability (lock), and Render Toggle. (9)
> 
> > So childrens visibility is synced to that of the parent?
> 
> I would say that making a change to a parent synchs all the children. 
> This way, there is a simple logic and the burden of resolving conflicts 
> falls to the user... It's a 100% transparent solution, because the 
> system is never "thinking" for the user.
> 
> An extension to this might be a Ctrl- or Alt- Click that operates ONLY 
> on the individual. May be usefull.
> 
> > What if I want to hide just one of children?
> 
> Then you Show the parent, and then hide the child.

With "synced" I meant if parent and childrens visibility will always 
be the same. Apparently not, so this is exactly as with my objcet 
hierarchy, where children of a visible parent can be visible, but 
must not. But if the parent is not visible, all children are hidden, 
too.

 
> > Can one object be in more than one container in your proposal?
> > If so, you would need some way of resolving conflicts because
> > of synced visibility. If not, that would be quite a limitation.
> 
> I don't see why not, though it presents some interesting issues, as you 
> point out. However, Remember that this does not replace the existing 
> Layer's Functionality, so I'm not sure how it imposes limitations, since 
> you can't do ANY of this right now.

This "resolving conflicts" refered to synced visibilty.


> >You basic idea of how to integrate grouping and visibilty management 
> >into a network view is interesting. But I think it would have to 
> >coexist with other things along the lines of parenting, tracking, 
> >constraints. So there's much more to take into account for redesigning 
> >OOPS window.
> 
> Again, Agreed :) I just present this as another path that might (or 
> might not) be taken.

Hey, so many things you agree on, can't remember any message here with 
the word "agreed" in it so many times. What have I done wrong? ;-)

 
> >BTW, Karim, may I download all your images relating to layers to 
> >put them directly on my page? 
> 
> Sure. No problem. Let me know when you've got them and I'll take down my 
> copies.

Thanks. I have 5 images.
You might still reconsider taking them down, because that would break links 
in the archive. That's one reason why I always post links to html pages. 
The images my old posts refered to are gone, but at least the links still 
point to pages on the topic.


---
Thorsten