[API Review] FX 8 3D API

[Richard Bair]

I would hope we're going to support user defined shaders. That doesn't mean some additional materials aren't a good idea. But we're not talking about dozens of additional classes, right?

On Feb 6, 2013, at 12:48 PM, Chien Yang <chien.yang at oracle.com> wrote:

> Don't exactly know at this point, but we did talk about adding high-order surfaces and additional light types at one point.  We will very likely need to support more material types if we want to hold the line of not supporting user defined shader.
> 
> - Chien
> 
> On 2/6/2013 11:22 AM, Richard Bair wrote:
>> How much?
>> 
>> On Feb 6, 2013, at 11:21 AM, Chien Yang <chien.yang at oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Richard,
>>> 
>>>     The number of classes in shape3d, light and material packages will certainly grow in future releases too as we add more features.
>>> 
>>> - Chien
>>> 
>>> On 2/6/2013 10:55 AM, Kevin Rushforth wrote:
>>>> They could all be put in the shape3d package, but it seems inconsistent with 2D packages: shape, paint effect, etc.
>>>> 
>>>> -- Kevin
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Richard Bair wrote:
>>>>> Hi Chien,
>>>>> 
>>>>>   
>>>>>>    javafx.scene.light.LightBase (abstract)
>>>>>>    javafx.scene.material.Material (abstract)
>>>>>>     
>>>>> I'm not jazzed about creating two new packages here. It seems like these things should all be grouped in the same place as camera, or shape3d. Ideas?
>>>>> 
>>>>>   
>>>>>> Methods and Properties added to Node
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> LOD helper property:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> /**
>>>>>> * A read only property that stores the computed area of this
>>>>>> * {@code Node} projected onto the physical screen in pixel unit.
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> public final double getAreaInScreen()
>>>>>> public final javafx.beans.property.ReadOnlyDoubleProperty areaInScreenProperty()
>>>>>>     
>>>>> Can this be efficiently implemented? We ripped out boundsInScene because it was impossible to get it fast enough. Why would this be any different?
>>>>> 
>>>>> The rest looks good.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Richard
>