[Bf-python] python API for particles for 2.46

[Campbell Barton]

If your worried about incomplete have a look at extending...
- Modifier Stack API is not totally finished - See UV-Project
modifier, smooth I think also.... have no python access.
- World Ambient Occlusion settings have no access
- New Action/Bone groups have no access as far as I know
- Pose Library has no access

On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:13 AM, Tom M <letterrip at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bill thanks for reminding me of the email from the gentleman who
>  apparently has updated the API for his own needs, emailing him to see
>  if he can provide a patch.  I was planning to work on an API this
>  weekend so that will likely save me some time.  This will only be in
>  there for 'those who desperately need it' since, apparently the entire
>  API will undergo significant changes for the 2.50 release.
>
>  LetterRip
>
>
>
>  On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 3:42 PM, bill nieuwendorp <slow67 at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > "There weren't that many scripts that used particle api anyway
>  >  AFAIK."
>  >
>  >  Well now we can be sure there will not be any, :)  (dry humor)
>  >
>  >
>  >  I realize that the new particle system is a very large new feature
>  >  which is still receiving updates and
>  >  bug fixes.Having a new release without internal access to particles,
>  >  feels incomplete.
>  >  I know that the python team is stretched a bit short with Cam working
>  >  on the open projects,
>  >
>  >  here is at least one person who appeared to be volunteering to help
>  >  http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-committers/2008-February/020197.html
>  >
>  >  if I had any C talent I would help, But do sign me up for bug and
>  >  stress testing.
>  >  I hope there can at least be an 2.47 with an updated api,
>  >  if 2.50 is going to be a long wait.
>  >
>  >  Bill
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >  On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Campbell Barton <ideasman42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  > On Feb 20, 2008 5:36 AM, Tom M <letterrip at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  >  > I know that there hasn't been any discussion of this, but it was
>  >  >  > pointed out to me on IRC that our dropping a large chunk of our API
>  >  >  > between significant versions could easily leave some of our users 'in
>  >  >  > the lurch' and is rather 'unprofessional'.
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  > I'd given this some thought but with other issues coming up it slipped my mind.
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  > So my question is, should we, could we complete a particle API for
>  >  >  > 2.46 based on the new particle code?
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  > What sort of time/effort would it take, and is there someone (or
>  >  >  > preferably multiple individuals) willing/able to take on that task?
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  > LetterRip
>  >  >
>  >  >  To do this well I think its a fair bit of work which - needs a fair
>  >  >  bit of testing too.
>  >  >  Particles was added before 2.46 release was planned.
>  >  >  Blender 2.5 will have a different way of accessing settings to the
>  >  >  current API - (the idea is to use the same constraints as the user
>  >  >  interface so no manual work is needed for simple data access)
>  >  >  So any API written now will probably only be available in 1 blender
>  >  >  release (unless 2.5 flops), so personally I have no interest in this
>  >  >  area. There weren't that many scripts that used particle api anyway
>  >  >  AFAIK.
>  >  >  _______________________________________________
>  >  >  Bf-python mailing list
>  >  >  Bf-python at blender.org
>  >  >  http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-python
>  >  >
>  >  _______________________________________________
>  >  Bf-python mailing list
>  >  Bf-python at blender.org
>  >  http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-python
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  Bf-python mailing list
>  Bf-python at blender.org
>  http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-python
>