[Bf-committers] Thoughts on transform code rewrite - attention Theeth

bf-committers@blender.org bf-committers@blender.org
Tue, 18 May 2004 14:44:25 -0500


Been poking around the transform code for a while now and the 
constraint code too. And had a few thoughts. I don't know where you 
folks plan to take the code and theeth is pretty busy right now so I 
can't get ahold of him. Maybe hell be able to see this :-)

transform(int mode) 
	this function is enormous and unweildy to work in. I know the plan 
is to rewrite it so no criticism here. I just though I would offer 
some thoughts on the direction that might be taken. I think we still 
need a single entrypoint for transforms. However once we get there 
packing all the action in that one function gets clunky real fast. I 
propose branching out from transform to mode specific code. Have a 
posemode transform function, an edit mode transform function and so 
on and so forth I think it would make tracking down the code blocks 
you need for a particular feature a lot easier. Transform would still 
handle setting up any environment stuff that is shared by all the 
modes. and of course there might be some operations on data that is 
common between modes also. Those could be put in functions all the 
modes could use. if we keep the mode entrypoints in the transform 
function separate though we avoid any problems down the road when one 
mode suddenly needs special treatment.

	the way they get evaluated now is rather hard to work with. I spent 
days tracking down when constraints get evaluated for bones in 
transform() finally managed to find a way to make sure it gets 
evaluated at least once after the tranform is finished. Ideally 
though we need a way to evaluate during the transform. That way the 
user gets realtime feedback while working on the object or bone. How 
to do that most efficiently I'm not totally sure. I was thinking 
though that if before making a change to any transform data we tested 
against a constraint then that would be workable. you could do that 
by having the evaluate constraint functions return a boolean value 
instead of actually changing the object's data. A failed the 
constraint test value means don't perform the transform.
This would also avoid any problems with people trying to figure out 
how to modify object data properly. if only transform and object 
creation handle the actual data modification and creation we have 
less possibility for programmer errors later on.
Anyway hope maybe this sparks some ideas on transform and 

At it's current state the constraint system is really not useful for 
animating armatures. We really need to fix that.

Jeremy Wall