<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div></div><div>Hi TJ,</div><div><br></div><div>I agree with Bob that implicit conversion could be a problem, especially when a similar operation exists in multiple sessions.</div><div><br></div><div>But I think it is nice to have a way to perform the conversion. In fact, the ERDC CS session has an operator for converting any non-parametric model into a model in that session. If we come up with a convention, we should make sure that operator is brought along for the ride.</div><div><br></div><div> David</div><div><br>On Jun 19, 2017, at 22:08, Bob Obara <<a href="mailto:bob.obara@kitware.com">bob.obara@kitware.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"><div class="">Wouldn’t the conversion to/from pair just be in a separate plugin (since it would need to be built against a pair of sessions)? In this case the conversion operators would be added to the corresponding sessions when the plugin is loaded. I’m not sure if having the model be implicitly being created is a good idea since the conversion may result in a loss of information) - explicit conversion at least would inform the user of the conversion limitations - now a workflow that requires such a conversion (for example going from a polygonal planar model to a 3d non-planar discrete model after applying an elevation field) would be able to apply it implicitly when going from one task in the workflow to another since the workflow designer would have factored in the conversion issues when designing the workflow.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Does that make sense or am I missing something?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Bob</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div class=""><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Robert M. O'Bara, MEng.<br class="">Assistant Director of Scientific Computing<br class=""><br class="">Kitware Inc.<br class="">28 Corporate Drive<br class="">Suite 101<br class="">Clifton Park, NY 12065<br class=""><br class="">Phone: (518) 881- 4931</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 19, 2017, at 6:45 PMEDT, TJ Corona <<a href="mailto:tj.corona@kitware.com" class="">tj.corona@kitware.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Hi all,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I have an idea, and I’d like to know what everyone thinks. We currently have multiple sessions with different backings, and each of these sessions have a different set of operators that it can perform. To my understanding, if a user wants to cross from session to session, they currently have to do so manually (i.e. create a working model in one session, open the model in a new session and perform the operation). What if we created “bridges” between sessions that facilitated to/from operations for each session pair, and then made these conversions implicit during model manipulation in ModelBuilder? For example, we create a bridge between the polygon and mesh sessions that describe how to convert a model of one type to the other (going from polygon to mesh would imply an implicit meshing operation, and going from mesh to model would imply an extraction of vertices, edges and faces in the mesh session to construct a polygon model). This way, a user could create a polygon model and then perform any of the meshing operations on it without having to know what session currently backs their model. Is this crazy?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Sincerely,</div><div class="">T.J.</div><br class=""><div class="">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class="">Thomas J. Corona, Ph.D.<br class="">Kitware, Inc.<br class="">Senior R&D Engineer<br class="">21 Corporate Drive<br class="">Clifton Park, NY 12065-8662<br class="">Phone: 518-881-4443</div></div>
</div>
<br class=""></div>_______________________________________________<br class="">Smtk-developers mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Smtk-developers@smtk.org" class="">Smtk-developers@smtk.org</a><br class=""><a href="http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/smtk-developers">http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/smtk-developers</a><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Smtk-developers mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Smtk-developers@smtk.org">Smtk-developers@smtk.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/smtk-developers">http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/smtk-developers</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>