On 02 Nov 2013, at 18:35, Jonne Nauha <jonne at adminotech.com> wrote: > But here is where I get confused. So you would be fine by us implementing Tundra components as WebComponent templates (as said this would be fairly trivial). How would XML3D then play into this situation? Would it now monitor our DOM elements instead of the ones you specify (afaik eg. <group> <mesh>)? Can you open up this a bit? My understanding here is that we’d agree on one entity-component model, a set of basic components and the extensibility mechanism for adding new components. This is why we worked in finding a reX EC <-> xml3d elements mapping earlier: to see whether we actually already use the same model. So one option is to use the xml3d schema for having the Tundra components in the DOM. It is much more readable so better for human xml authoring, viewing in the debugger etc. We can of course still support TXML loading too. Now I need to read Philipp’s post that just came in to see what goes on there.. :p ~Toni > UI and WebComponents > > WebComponents are also being looked at in our 2D-UI GE, but to be frank there is very little to do there. The system is incredibly simple to use. You include polymer.js to you page, add <link> tags to your Polymer style .html templates, then you just use the tags declared in them on the markup or you create the DOM nodes during runtime from JS with your preferred method. I'm having a bit of hard time figuring out what we should focus on in the 2D part for WebComponents. I mean they are there and you can use them, you don't need any kind of special APIs or supporting code from our side for them to work. Only thing I can think of is implementing some widgets and maybe 3D related templates for anyone when they use WebTundra. > > Best regards, > Jonne Nauha > Meshmoon developer at Adminotech Ltd. > www.meshmoon.com > > > On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Philipp Slusallek <Philipp.Slusallek at dfki.de> wrote: > Hi Toni, all, > > I have now looked at video on the main Polymer page (http://www.polymer-project.org/), which is actually very nicely done. They make a very good point why its advantageous to put things in the DOM compared to pure JS applications (or even Angular, which already uses the DOM). They highlight that with WebComponents (Polymer is a polyfill implementation of them) this becomes now even easier and creates an object-oriented aspect for HTML. > > BTW, this aspect is exactly what we were aiming at when we suggested the use of WebComponents for the 2D-UI Epic in the objectives of the FI-WARE Open Call and I think we should push even more in this direction, similar to what I wrote in response to Jonne's email earlier. > > Regarding the mapping: We already have the mapping of 3D to the DOM (XML3D) as well as many modules that build on top of that mapping (Xflow with animation, image processing, and AR; portable materials, etc.). I see no reason why we should throw this out just because there is a slightly different way of doing it. > > I would even speculate that if we would try to offer similar functionality that at the end we would end up with something that would pretty much resemble XML3D, maybe with a slightly different syntax. There are usually not many way to do the same thing in a good way. > > What I would support 100%, however, is that we try to use Web*Components* to implement the *ECA components* (and possibly entities). Essentially for the same reasons explained in the video. That makes a lot of sense in the Web context and is fully compatible with the DOM and all the DOM-based frameworks that can then be used as well on this data. > > I have been saying for a long time that we have had libraries in C/C++. Just porting them to JS to run in the Web does not give us any advantages at all (likely only disadvantages like performance and an inferior language). Its only if we embrace the key elements of the Web -- and the runtime DOM arguably is the core of it all -- that we can tap into all the benefits of the Web. > > And THE key advantage of the DOM is that you get *way more* than the sum of the pieces when putting things together. Instead, of making sure that one library can talk to all the others (which gets you into an N^2 complexity problem), each component only needs to work with the DOM (constant effort per component and you have to deal with one data structure anyway, so its essentially no overhead anyway). Then, you get the benefit from all other components *automatically and completely for free* (jquery and all the other tools "just work" also with XML3D, and we should be able to use XML3D within Polymer also). > > Note, that none of the Web technologies discussed here (WebComponents, Polymer, Angular, etc.) would work at all if they would not use the DOM at their core. Angular for example depends on the DOM and just allows a nicer binding of custom functionality (controller implemented in JS) to the DOM. > > This all applies exactly the same way also to 3D data -- at least logically. However, on the implementation side 3D is special because you have to take care of large data structures, typed arrays, and so on. This is what the main work in XML3D was all about. Why should someone invest all the effort to do it again for likely very similar results in the end? > > We can talk about using three.js as a renderer, though, but I would not touch the 3D DOM binding and data model that we already have in XML3D (unless someone comes with very good reasons to do so). > > > Best, > > Philipp > > > Am 02.11.2013 09:27, schrieb Toni Alatalo: > > On 02 Nov 2013, at 09:09, Philipp Slusallek <Philipp.Slusallek at dfki.de> wrote: > Nice stuff. from my perspective there are two ways to look at this work: One is to provide high level UI elements on top of a three.js implementation and the other is the start of creating a declarative layer on top of the three.js renderer. This seems more along the first line but both should be similarly interesting to us. > > Indeed. > > It great to see that other people are coming up with similar ideas now. It would be good to get the message about our XML3D design and implementation to these people out there. That way we could improve what we already have instead of reinventing the wheel. > > That was my immediate first thought as well: it seemed like people have started to reinvent declarative 3d for the web from scratch. That’s why I asked whether they knew about the existing work — I understood that this Josh Galvin person (don’t know him from before) who made the Spinner demo, did (am not sure). > > Thanks for the views and pointers, I’ll keep an eye open for talks about this (actually just joined the #three.js irc channel on freenode yesterday, haven’t been involved in their community before really — Tapani from us has been hanging out there though). They seem to communicate most in the github issue tracker and pull requests (which I think is a great way). > > I also did not find an e-mail address to the polymer-threejs person, but kaosat.net is his personal site and apparently he made the original announcement of the declarative three.js thing in August in Google+ so I figure e.g. replying there would be one way to comment: https://plus.google.com/112899217323877236232/posts/bUW1hrwHcAW .. I can do that on Monday. > > BTW it seems that this guy is into hardware and cad and all sorts of things and declarative 3d xml is just a side thing for fun, perhaps related to his work on some cad thing — is not like he’d be pursuing a career or a product or anything out of it. > > It seems like a straightforward mapping of the three.js API to xml elements: what I struggle to understand now is whether that’s a good abstraction level and how does it correspond to xml3d’s vocabulary. > > ~Toni > > It would be good if you can point people also to our papers from this year (http://graphics.cg.uni-saarland.de/publications/). They explain a lot of the background of why we have chose thing to work the way they work. > > More specifically: > -- The "xml3d.js" paper explain a lot about the design of XML3D and its implementation (https://graphics.cg.uni-saarland.de/2013/xml3djs-architecture-of-a-polyfill-implementation-of-xml3d/). > -- The "Declarative image processing" paper explains all the advantages one gets from exposing processing elements to the DOM instead of implementing them only in some JS libraries (https://graphics.cg.uni-saarland.de/2013/declarative-ar-and-image-processing-on-the-web-with-xflow/). > -- And the 2012 paper on "XFlow" shows this usage for animation (https://graphics.cg.uni-saarland.de/2012/xflow-declarative-data-processing-for-the-web/) > > Getting into a constructive discussion with some of these three.js people would be a good thing. I tried to find an email address for the polymer-threejs person but could not find any. Feel free to farward this email to him (and maybe others). I would love to get their feedback and engage in discussions. > > > Best, > > Philipp > > Am 02.11.2013 00:38, schrieb Toni Alatalo: > Apparently some three.js user/dev has gotten inspired by WebComponents & > the Polymeer and written https://github.com/kaosat-dev/polymer-threejs :) > > Now another guy has continued with > https://github.com/JoshGalvin/three-polymer — there’s a demo of custom > element (‘spinner’), similar to the Door case discussed here earlier. > > Had a brief chat with him, will return to this later but was fun to see > the minimal webgl web component example there as that has been in our > agenda. > > ~Toni > > 01:01 *<* galv*>* https://github.com/JoshGalvin/three-polymer added > support for more basic geometry types > 01:02 *<* galv*>* Going to do materials next > 01:25 *<* *antont**>* galv: hee - are you aware of these btw? > http://www.w3.org/community/declarative3d/ , e.g. > https://github.com/xml3d/xml3d.js > 01:27 *<* galv*>* yeah, different level of abstraction > 01:27 *<* *antont**>* perhaps > 01:28 *<* galv*>* I expect people to wrap up their game objects > 01:28 *<* galv*>* aka "spinner" > 01:28 *<* galv*>* (index.html) > 01:29 *<* *antont**>* we've been also planning to enable saying things > like <door> if that's what you mean > 01:30 *<* *antont**>* right, seems like the same idea > 01:31 *<* *antont**>* very cool to see, gotta check the codes etc later > .. but sleep now, laters > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-miwi mailing list > Fiware-miwi at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-miwi > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz (DFKI) GmbH > Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern > > Geschäftsführung: > Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender) > Dr. Walter Olthoff > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: > Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Kaiserslautern (HRB 2313) > USt-Id.Nr.: DE 148646973, Steuernummer: 19/673/0060/3 > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > <slusallek.vcf> > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz (DFKI) GmbH > Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern > > Geschäftsführung: > Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender) > Dr. Walter Olthoff > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: > Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Kaiserslautern (HRB 2313) > USt-Id.Nr.: DE 148646973, Steuernummer: 19/673/0060/3 > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-miwi mailing list > Fiware-miwi at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-miwi > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-miwi/attachments/20131103/098df343/attachment.html>
You can get more information about our cookies and privacy policies clicking on the following links: Privacy policy Cookies policy