Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Proposal for new architecture for UnityGLTF library #259
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Proposal for new architecture for UnityGLTF library #259
Changes from all commits
152ffe4
f94c80e
5cd205d
c068452
57f547b
7aa3e51
2321bfc
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do we need this paramterless constructor?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The default constructor is used for when there are no options that are being set
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why not just pass in null if you don't want to set options? It seems weird that the options are to either provide extensions and options, or nothing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
interface, not class
Also wondering about the name of this interface... I wonder if something like IResourceLocator would be more self explanatory? Not sure...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's not really locating resources. It's only resolving them to a stream.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How about
Uri uri
instead ofstring uri
. Just require at the contract level that a valid Uri is passed in.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Because it's not necessarily a web uri, which seems to be what the uri class is built around. Maybe path is a better parameter name?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The URI documentation says that it supports the
file://
protocol, which in turn supports relative URIs. Seems like that would be enough.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does it not make more sense for this to just be a parameter of the actual Export* method(s)? Is it not possible to have a single exporter instance that exports both gltf and glb?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No longer valid, correct?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this assuming that deserialization is synchronous? Seems like this would naturally lead people down a bad path.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, this is just passing in a uri that will be resolved during the actual load