[Bf-committers] Node Unification.. it's a bit winded

joe joeedh at gmail.com
Thu Jun 18 04:20:01 CEST 2009

Good idea, sharing nodes between trees where it makes sense is sensible.

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Mathias
Panzenböck<grosser.meister.morti at gmx.net> wrote:
> I'm an outsider (not a blender developer) but observed a lot of this discussion.
> Maybe a compromise would be feasible:
> While there are certain things that can't be unified because of how the
> different node systems work (e.g. operates on image buffers where you can access
> all pixels Vs. the call of a function per pixel that calls another function on
> maybe another pixel) some nodes similar in all systems could be unified.
> Some functions need no more than to get a value (no need for context
> information, no need to get the value of another coordinate), make some
> calculations with it and deliver the result value. I think it might be possible
> to implement a node type for this case and implement appropriate adaptors (maybe
> just C macros to speed it up) in all node systems so nodes of this type can be
> plugged into all node systems. Nodes that can be reduced to this logic (and are
> already there in more than one node system, and have duplicated code, and
> actually had bugs because of the code duplication for which I provided a patch
> that got committed to svn ages ago which makes me proud) would be:
>  * All kinds of color operations like separate/combine RGBA/HSVA/YUVA, color
>    curves etc.
>  * Math
>  * ...
> Things that would not be possible with this generalized nodes and for what
> therefore specialized nodes in each node system have to be written would be:
>  * Blur
>  * Rotate/Translate/Scale
>  * ...
> So rather than completely unifying the node systems to a single one just
> providing support for such *simple* nodes in each system in order to reduce code
> duplication would seem reasonable to me. Basically you would have the node
> types: SHD, TEX, MAT and SPL (for simple nodes). Nodes written for the latter
> type would immediately be available in each system.
>        -panzi
> PS: Now its 3am here too (Austria), so I hope I haven't written a lot of
> nonsense. I'll go to bed now, good night.
> joe wrote:
>> Honestly, I don't think we're ever going to have a unified node tree system,
>> at least from  the UI perspective of things.  It's just too potentially
>> unstable.
>> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list