[Bf-committers] Naming layer

[LECOCQ Guillaume]

2005/4/20, Ton Roosendaal <ton at blender.org>:
> Hi,
> 
> The Blender layer system uses bitmasks, meaning there is no single
> layer you can use to give it a name.  If we like it or not, but it's
> being used (and useful) to define relationships between objects, like
> metaballs or do define which lamps give lights on what objects (lamp in
> layer 1,2,3, object in layer 3, scene showing layer 2+3).

I understand what you say, but how user know what is the layer 3 in
your exemple after some month of no editing his scene? If users have
the possibility to assign a name for the layer, he can put the name
lamp for layer 1 and 2 and the name object + lamp for the layer 3.

> 
> There has been a discussion on extending layers in the past, especially
> on the functionality mailing list. My main issue is that people should
> come with real intelligent & well designed solutions, keeping the ease
> of use, and really extending it with compatible & future proof
> functionality.

If anyone make a layer manager with respecting of all Blender's
spirit, the layer manager can be accepted in the BF?
 
> As for the instinctive layer manager; this implementation looks like
> the usual quick & easy hack, something probably Alexander can use
> perfectly, but not something that complies to a standard as I like to
> see it for Blender. A good system to manage relations/grouping or
> properties for your Objects in a Scene will be just more work,
> requiring in-depth understanding of the full range of Blender, a
> maximum integration level, also related to extending the project as
> started for the Outliner for example.

There is perhaps the solution of put layer in Outliner with some option.

> Sometimes I can seem like a show-stopping bitchy conservative here...
> :) I realize we need to find good ways to attract & involve new
> developers. But the times are also over to accept each code
> contribution only because it's a desired feature. We only run into
> troubles with that.
> Don't forget that the parts that nicely work within a Blender
> architecture are the real strong aspects in Blender, working already
> for 10 years, and still future proof. This stability allows for quick
> hacks, which is OK for within a production environment (like
> instinctive blender), but not per definition fit for inclusion in
> official releases.

For the quick hack, I understand but if a quick hack can open a real
project I will continu to lear and try coding and put in the patch
tracker.


> -Ton-
> 
> 
Guillaume.

PS : sorry for my english, you know some people don't talk english natively.