N.G.B or Future 3D technology DISCUSSION (We need one)

General discussion about the development of the open source Blender

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

eskil
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 10:42 pm

Post by eskil »

the "P" in "HTTP" stands for protocol.

E

thorax
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 6:45 am
Contact:

Post by thorax »

xype wrote:
thorax wrote:Xype and Eskil, if Verse is a protocol, then HTML/HTTP is
a protocol too.. Is it??


Using the web analogy, Verse is HTTP and NGB is a browser that renders/edits the HTML it gets from HTTP. NGB can be anything between Mozilla and Konqueror as far as the complexity goes.
Eskil said the P in HTTP is Protocol, the other parts are Hyper Text
Transfer Protocol.. But CORBA the thing I've talked
about a lot is really a a protocol language, it allows one to write custom protocols without having to know anything about transfer protocols,
high-integrity data transport methods, network addressing
problems, etc.. It just makes me wonder why Eskil
doesn't say he got his ideas and most of his hype from the CORBA
paradigm, he's basically taken his own ideas and written
into a brochure of sorts on CORBA, Verse, then continues to
talk about language independence, extensibility and scalability, etc..
This is true of CORBA, its half true with Verse.. Verse is a packet swapping protocol over UDP with custom language that
is specific to 3D interactions between a client and server..

CORBA is like big brother comapred to Verse, its like
more than Eskil could even attempt.. It makes me wonder
why he is not using it.. Maybe its too slow.. I have been doing patient
record transfers over CORBA at about 200 megs in a few minutes..
I fail to see how its a slow protocol..

1.6 million references to CORBA on google..
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... -8&q=CORBA

336,000 references to Konquerer
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... =Konqueror

If I add "browser" ro Konqueror that count drops to about 400+
references..

If I add Object to CORBA the references drop to about 400,000+

If I add Parallel to Object and CORBA in google I get about 71,000 + hits

If I add processing I get 40,000 hits

If I add Interoperability I get 12,000 hits..

I add DIstributed to that I am still at 12,000 hits..


Oh this is an interesting paper about some people that
compared an MPI network to TCP.. Note that
in the graph in this document they show these
high performance rating for CORBA.. CORBA can use multiple networking
protocols at the same time, but these guys custom designed
a CORBA ORB and IDL compiler to do this, in any case its possible and
it exceeds the capabilities of even mere mortal TCP
connection..

http://dsonline.computer.org/0302/f/pri_print.htm

http://www.irisa.fr/paris/Paco/welcome.htm

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... A+SIGGRAPH

SIGGRAPH + CORBA gets about 1,200 hits..

This one looks like Eskil's idea and the paper was published
by SIGGRAPH in 1998..

http://www.acm.org/sigs/sigmm/MM2001/ep/louis/


This one about Games and Possible CORBA could make for interesting
reading..

http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~am ... Games.html

http://developer.gnome.org/doc/whitepap ... corba.html

Now I'm not suggesting we use CORBA, but it gives some structure for
the thought and question of where to go and what the future for blender could look like.. And that there is nothing really that special
about Verse in relation to the rest of the Universe which is
using technologies like CORBA..

http://developer.gnome.org/doc/standards/
Last edited by thorax on Tue Jun 10, 2003 2:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

xype
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 10:36 pm

Post by xype »

thorax wrote:I would ask why Eskil didn't just develop an extension to Orbit that allowed existing CORBA users to talk over UDP..


Either he did an analysis and found out that it's not an optimal solution or he just didn't want to.

eskil
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 10:42 pm

Post by eskil »

xype wrote:
thorax wrote:I would ask why Eskil didn't just develop an extension to Orbit that allowed existing CORBA users to talk over UDP..


Either he did an analysis and found out that it's not an optimal solution or he just didn't want to.
...or both.

thorax
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 6:45 am
Contact:

Post by thorax »

eskil wrote:
xype wrote:
thorax wrote:I would ask why Eskil didn't just develop an extension to Orbit that allowed existing CORBA users to talk over UDP..


Either he did an analysis and found out that it's not an optimal solution or he just didn't want to.
...or both.
I'm just trying to expand the vision of the users so that they can see there are other technologies out there and Verse is just a choice..
Blender may implement several communications technologies
but if Blender is to ever integrate with super computers and
industrial class machines it will need a CORBA interface..
But its okay not to get involved with it now, Verse could help to
the concept of how such technologies work..

xype
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 10:36 pm

Post by xype »

thorax wrote:Blender may implement several communications technologies but if Blender is to ever integrate with super computers and industrial class machines it will need a CORBA interface..


Whatfor? Couldn't Blender be compiled on these machines and access their "extended" functionality that way? It would certainly seem a more attractive approach to me.

thorax
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 6:45 am
Contact:

Post by thorax »

xype wrote:
thorax wrote:Blender may implement several communications technologies but if Blender is to ever integrate with super computers and industrial class machines it will need a CORBA interface..


Whatfor? Couldn't Blender be compiled on these machines and access their "extended" functionality that way? It would certainly seem a more attractive approach to me.
Not likely, when you get into information systems management it becomes about standardizing technologies, picking communications
standards, and more likely such an organization will develop a CORBA interface to blender maybe influenced by Verse but more likely by existing standards for CORBA. The reason I say that is they don't have to write interface code to Verse, which you would have to do to write an interface to Verse despite the language.. In CORBA you just get the IDL2LanguageOfYourCHoice converter and compile the IDL that comes with the interface spec.. The interface spec looks like
C structs with methods in them but it is more clear parameters are
inptu and what are output and return values can be data structures
for the methods.. Its like verse in that way, but IDL compiler will generate the libraries needed to implement the interface directly from the spec. Usually when someone has a specification of a interface you still have to figure out what the data structures look like in yoru language of choice, in CORBA you don't, you just compile the IDL and out pops your stub abd skeleton, the stub you interface with your client code and the skeleton with your server code.. Sun makes it easier in that you can generate
stubs/skeleton libraries for any Java component, so you could
make a object relationship in java and translate that to IDL and ultimately into a CORBA structure.. Then you could compile the IDL for the Java
structure in C and interface with the Java code via C by calling the
stub code from C...

dreamerv3
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 10:30 am

Post by dreamerv3 »

yes and the "big picture" here the "grand design" which would be the logical offsrping of such network based design would be.

Feature = different browser

Different = Different programming language and if smae language diffrent coventions/coding methods. (no mechanism to prevent this)

The "application" becomes a transient thing, it can be one thing one minute and something else the next, depending on how you connect the different browsers togehter via the server.

To this end I also go with the crowd that says keep the concepts separate.

What I mean when I say separate....

top to bottom == low level to high level layering.

I don't mean:

User -- high level input
Blender -- features
Verse -- low level framwork

I do Mean:

User -Control(chooses which feature to use when)
Blender -- Features( etc, etc, etc, verse, etc, etc, etc)
Local System -- OS, blah blah blah

If blender and verse were separate yet allied, via a module.

Then verse could still grow and use other apps perhaps via module perhaps totally based on verse from the ground up.

The server would still work the way eskil has explained.

Blender would retain the benefits of a core group of developers maintaining and controlling
vital belnder services, working on the API, coding conventions, do's and don't of soding for blender, etc...

the verse plugin would essentially become a client in itself and then communicate data to blender through the blender networking faculties which have been as yet un mentioned. which I think is a mistake.

In fact that prompts me to make a diagram of what I perceive a modular application could be like.
Then we can see what the concensus is with others.

thorax
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 6:45 am
Contact:

Post by thorax »

What would benefit the Blender.org website is a way to attach files
the message base.. I know how to implement the upload routine
in PHP, its easy, all we would need to do is orient the message ID's with attachment packages.. This would be good for say when you make a
graph or diagram you can post it.. We could limit the sizes of the posts
and if needed it could upload to some other site and link the file here,
I don't know how to do that, but I've heard there is a limitation on file storage.. I'm using www.burtonhosting.com and they seem to be okay for storage space.. Anyhow that would help the advancement of
ideas.

As for Verse, is its own thing..
Last edited by thorax on Wed Jun 11, 2003 7:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

matt_e
Posts: 410
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 4:32 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by matt_e »

OT: Upload it to your own webspace and link to it. For images, you can use the bbcode IMG tags like so: Image
thorax wrote:What would benefit the Blender.org website is a way to attach files
the message base..

thorax
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 6:45 am
Contact:

Post by thorax »

broken wrote:OT: Upload it to your own webspace and link to it. For images, you can use the bbcode IMG tags like so: Image
thorax wrote:What would benefit the Blender.org website is a way to attach files
the message base..
I'll try to think up a beter solution.. I'll will ponder about it.
I really believe you will need an attachment feature for messages
because it won't allow some of the users to express their
ideas without losing interest in the process. We need free expression of the ideas and that means being able to post attachments..

I've thought about what would be involved in doing it and it wouldn't
be useful to have to try to link stuff being uploaded elsewhere, you
do know that there is a form submit for posting files, the code for
doing it in PHP is like 5 lines of code..
http://www.php.net/manual/en/features.file-upload.php

At the very least we could give the users scripts that allow them
to upload to their website their files and the PHP script could generate
the necessary ascii code to place the icon and link here..

I just want to make it a bit standard than being adhoc linking of stuff..
Also if its done this way the script could include the necessary
CHMOD'ing of files and code necessary to ensure that the file exists
and is not uploaded without the proper CHMOD settings to be downloaded.. It would be up the user to hide the interface to upload files
by security through obscurity which works sometimes.. The script could also be designed to email them when someone uploads files using the script..

Post Reply