T
Troberg
Fri, Jan 27, 2017 7:59 AM
Is there any project/fork which has the viewport of OpenSCAD as some kind of
embeddable object (preferably ActiveX)?
Basically, what I'd like to do is to have a user control which I can use in
my programs, which I could simply feed a script as a string, and have it
drawn. The only user interface would be what's directly related to the view
(zoom, pan, rotate, show edges et cetera) and all settings would simply be
UI-less properties on the user control.
That would allow me to embed it into a program, have the program generate an
object (from parameters, database, specialized GUI et cetera), and then have
it drawn.
So, basically, the next level of the OpenSCAD Customizer, allowing me to
create things I can put in the hands of ordinary users (or make things
really easy for me when I'm feeling lazy).
--
View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/OpenSCAD-as-ActiveX-tp20249.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Is there any project/fork which has the viewport of OpenSCAD as some kind of
embeddable object (preferably ActiveX)?
Basically, what I'd like to do is to have a user control which I can use in
my programs, which I could simply feed a script as a string, and have it
drawn. The only user interface would be what's directly related to the view
(zoom, pan, rotate, show edges et cetera) and all settings would simply be
UI-less properties on the user control.
That would allow me to embed it into a program, have the program generate an
object (from parameters, database, specialized GUI et cetera), and then have
it drawn.
So, basically, the next level of the OpenSCAD Customizer, allowing me to
create things I can put in the hands of ordinary users (or make things
really easy for me when I'm feeling lazy).
--
View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/OpenSCAD-as-ActiveX-tp20249.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
TP
Torsten Paul
Fri, Jan 27, 2017 9:12 AM
Is there any project/fork which has the viewport of OpenSCAD
as some kind of embeddable object (preferably ActiveX)?
I did not see anything like that so far.
Basically, what I'd like to do is to have a user control which
I can use in my programs, which I could simply feed a script
as a string, and have it drawn. The only user interface would
be what's directly related to the view (zoom, pan, rotate,
show edges et cetera) and all settings would simply be UI-less
properties on the user control.
An interface to remote control actions does exist in a branch,
but that's currently only available via D-BUS which would
probably make it almost impossible to use on Windows (I'm not
sure if Qt does have D-BUS on Windows implemented). I don't
know what a native/usable Windows solution could use instead.
So, basically, the next level of the OpenSCAD Customizer,
allowing me to create things I can put in the hands of ordinary
users (or make things really easy for me when I'm feeling lazy).
I do like the idea, but also have 2 questions
-
Why ActiveX? That would definitely exclude any users on
non-Windows systems.
-
Does it need to be that specific so it must be a
separate application? That always sounds like a great
idea in the short run as it allows more freedom to do
things, but that only applies until there are a reasonable
number of users.
ciao,
Torsten.
Von: Troberg <troberg.anders@gmail.com>
> Is there any project/fork which has the viewport of OpenSCAD
> as some kind of embeddable object (preferably ActiveX)?
>
I did not see anything like that so far.
> Basically, what I'd like to do is to have a user control which
> I can use in my programs, which I could simply feed a script
> as a string, and have it drawn. The only user interface would
> be what's directly related to the view (zoom, pan, rotate,
> show edges et cetera) and all settings would simply be UI-less
> properties on the user control.
>
An interface to remote control actions does exist in a branch,
but that's currently only available via D-BUS which would
probably make it almost impossible to use on Windows (I'm not
sure if Qt does have D-BUS on Windows implemented). I don't
know what a native/usable Windows solution could use instead.
> So, basically, the next level of the OpenSCAD Customizer,
> allowing me to create things I can put in the hands of ordinary
> users (or make things really easy for me when I'm feeling lazy).
>
I do like the idea, but also have 2 questions
- Why ActiveX? That would definitely exclude any users on
non-Windows systems.
- Does it need to be that specific so it must be a
separate application? That always sounds like a great
idea in the short run as it allows more freedom to do
things, but that only applies until there are a reasonable
number of users.
ciao,
Torsten.
MK
Marius Kintel
Fri, Jan 27, 2017 4:11 PM
I can add these thoughts:
-
Qt does support activeX components through the ActiveQt framework: https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/activeqt-index.html
Due to the platform-specific traction of ActiveX, it’s not very high on our list to go down that road ourselves though.
-
Just to clarify: Embedding such a component into an application doesn’t alleviate you from following the OpenSCAD license, so your entire application would still have to be open sourced with a GPL compatible license.
-
We’ve received multiple requests for an embeddable viewer over the years, so this has potential for wider use if we can establish the resources to make it happen.
-
As Torsten alluded towards, if you’re writing an app from scratch, why not simply write it in Qt? That would make such embedding a lot easier. You’d also acquire the experience to help working towards isolating OpenSCAD’s viewer component into something embeddable. ..plus you’ll be multi-platform ready.
Kind Regards,
-Marius
I can add these thoughts:
1) Qt does support activeX components through the ActiveQt framework: https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/activeqt-index.html
Due to the platform-specific traction of ActiveX, it’s not very high on our list to go down that road ourselves though.
2) Just to clarify: Embedding such a component into an application doesn’t alleviate you from following the OpenSCAD license, so your entire application would still have to be open sourced with a GPL compatible license.
3) We’ve received multiple requests for an embeddable viewer over the years, so this has potential for wider use if we can establish the resources to make it happen.
4) As Torsten alluded towards, if you’re writing an app from scratch, why not simply write it in Qt? That would make such embedding a lot easier. You’d also acquire the experience to help working towards isolating OpenSCAD’s viewer component into something embeddable. ..plus you’ll be multi-platform ready.
Kind Regards,
-Marius
FS
Felipe Sanches
Fri, Jan 27, 2017 5:04 PM
Would it be too ambitious to think of an emscripten build of OpenSCAD ?
2017-01-27 14:11 GMT-02:00 Marius Kintel marius@kintel.net:
I can add these thoughts:
-
Qt does support activeX components through the ActiveQt framework:
https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/activeqt-index.html
Due to the platform-specific traction of ActiveX, it’s not very high
on our list to go down that road ourselves though.
-
Just to clarify: Embedding such a component into an application doesn’t
alleviate you from following the OpenSCAD license, so your entire
application would still have to be open sourced with a GPL compatible
license.
-
We’ve received multiple requests for an embeddable viewer over the
years, so this has potential for wider use if we can establish the
resources to make it happen.
-
As Torsten alluded towards, if you’re writing an app from scratch, why
not simply write it in Qt? That would make such embedding a lot easier.
You’d also acquire the experience to help working towards isolating
OpenSCAD’s viewer component into something embeddable. ..plus you’ll be
multi-platform ready.
Kind Regards,
-Marius
OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
Would it be too ambitious to think of an emscripten build of OpenSCAD ?
2017-01-27 14:11 GMT-02:00 Marius Kintel <marius@kintel.net>:
> I can add these thoughts:
>
> 1) Qt does support activeX components through the ActiveQt framework:
> https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/activeqt-index.html
> Due to the platform-specific traction of ActiveX, it’s not very high
> on our list to go down that road ourselves though.
>
> 2) Just to clarify: Embedding such a component into an application doesn’t
> alleviate you from following the OpenSCAD license, so your entire
> application would still have to be open sourced with a GPL compatible
> license.
>
> 3) We’ve received multiple requests for an embeddable viewer over the
> years, so this has potential for wider use if we can establish the
> resources to make it happen.
>
> 4) As Torsten alluded towards, if you’re writing an app from scratch, why
> not simply write it in Qt? That would make such embedding a lot easier.
> You’d also acquire the experience to help working towards isolating
> OpenSCAD’s viewer component into something embeddable. ..plus you’ll be
> multi-platform ready.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> -Marius
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> Discuss@lists.openscad.org
> http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
>
MK
Marius Kintel
Sat, Jan 28, 2017 4:28 AM
On Jan 27, 2017, at 12:04, Felipe Sanches juca@members.fsf.org wrote:
Would it be too ambitious to think of an emscripten build of OpenSCAD ?
It has been done - it used to be hosted at fabfabbers.com, but it didn’t make it.
There are still traces lying around, https://github.com/marcosscriven/openscad, https://github.com/marcosscriven/cgaljs
Emscripten has its own issues, mostly due to it not being an API for creating Javascript objects from the C++ side of things, so everything needs to be marshalled through a text-based format.
I’ve been experimenting with a pure Javascript approach. I think that would be preferrable; then just access the heavy number crunching done by CGAL over the Emscripten bridge. It’s going to be a major time sink though, so I’m not actively pursuing it at the moment.
-Marius
> On Jan 27, 2017, at 12:04, Felipe Sanches <juca@members.fsf.org> wrote:
>
> Would it be too ambitious to think of an emscripten build of OpenSCAD ?
>
It has been done - it used to be hosted at fabfabbers.com, but it didn’t make it.
There are still traces lying around, https://github.com/marcosscriven/openscad, https://github.com/marcosscriven/cgaljs
Emscripten has its own issues, mostly due to it not being an API for creating Javascript objects from the C++ side of things, so everything needs to be marshalled through a text-based format.
I’ve been experimenting with a pure Javascript approach. I think that would be preferrable; then just access the heavy number crunching done by CGAL over the Emscripten bridge. It’s going to be a major time sink though, so I’m not actively pursuing it at the moment.
-Marius
T
Troberg
Sat, Jan 28, 2017 9:35 AM
Well, it's simply because, at the moment, for me, it would be easiest. Other
solutions would also work. My point is more the embeddable feature than any
specific technology.
- Does it need to be that specific so it must be a
separate application? That always sounds like a great
idea in the short run as it allows more freedom to do
things, but that only applies until there are a reasonable
number of users.
In my case, I've made an "overcoat app" to keep track of my projects. It has
everything from material lists (I'm not 3D printing, I'm building the old
style way), shopping lists, issues, outstanding questions, project
descriptions, "seed measurements", work plans, experiences from the project
and, of course, the math which drives the script generation and the script.
Out of pure laziness, it's made in Access and VB6 (it's been around for a
while).
I could (and do) shell out OpenSCAD, but it would be neater to have it more
self contained.
--
View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/OpenSCAD-as-ActiveX-tp20249p20255.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> - Why Active X?
Well, it's simply because, at the moment, for me, it would be easiest. Other
solutions would also work. My point is more the embeddable feature than any
specific technology.
> - Does it need to be that specific so it must be a
> separate application? That always sounds like a great
> idea in the short run as it allows more freedom to do
> things, but that only applies until there are a reasonable
> number of users.
In my case, I've made an "overcoat app" to keep track of my projects. It has
everything from material lists (I'm not 3D printing, I'm building the old
style way), shopping lists, issues, outstanding questions, project
descriptions, "seed measurements", work plans, experiences from the project
and, of course, the math which drives the script generation and the script.
Out of pure laziness, it's made in Access and VB6 (it's been around for a
while).
I could (and do) shell out OpenSCAD, but it would be neater to have it more
self contained.
--
View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/OpenSCAD-as-ActiveX-tp20249p20255.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
T
Troberg
Sat, Jan 28, 2017 9:42 AM
- Just to clarify: Embedding such a component into an application doesn’t
alleviate you from following the OpenSCAD license, so your entire
application would still have to be open sourced with a GPL compatible
license.
I know that, but, in m case, it's just for me, and maybe a friend or two, so
it won't be a problem. I have no plans to productify it.
- As Torsten alluded towards, if you’re writing an app from scratch, why
not simply write it in Qt? That would make such embedding a lot easier.
You’d also acquire the experience to help working towards isolating
OpenSCAD’s viewer component into something embeddable. ..plus you’ll be
multi-platform ready.
I already have my application, and would prefer not to rewrite it.
That said, any technology that's at least somewhat standard would be
workable, most others could be done by encapsulating it.
In fact, once the interface is specified and the code partitioned as needed
(which probably is already more or less done internally anyway),
encapsulating that object in any embedding technology would probably be
fairly simple.
--
View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/OpenSCAD-as-ActiveX-tp20249p20256.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 2) Just to clarify: Embedding such a component into an application doesn’t
alleviate you from following the OpenSCAD license, so your entire
application would still have to be open sourced with a GPL compatible
license.
I know that, but, in m case, it's just for me, and maybe a friend or two, so
it won't be a problem. I have no plans to productify it.
> 4) As Torsten alluded towards, if you’re writing an app from scratch, why
> not simply write it in Qt? That would make such embedding a lot easier.
> You’d also acquire the experience to help working towards isolating
> OpenSCAD’s viewer component into something embeddable. ..plus you’ll be
> multi-platform ready.
I already have my application, and would prefer not to rewrite it.
That said, any technology that's at least somewhat standard would be
workable, most others could be done by encapsulating it.
In fact, once the interface is specified and the code partitioned as needed
(which probably is already more or less done internally anyway),
encapsulating that object in any embedding technology would probably be
fairly simple.
--
View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/OpenSCAD-as-ActiveX-tp20249p20256.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
JD
Jerry Davis
Sun, Jan 29, 2017 2:01 PM
I would hope not (at least not ActiveX). That is a windows ONLY solution,
and OpenSCAD is cross platform.
--
Extra Ham Operator: K7AZJ
Registered Linux User: 275424
Raspberry Pi and Openscad developer
The most exciting phrase to hear in science - the one that heralds new
discoveries - is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny...".- Isaac. Asimov
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Troberg troberg.anders@gmail.com wrote:
- Just to clarify: Embedding such a component into an application
doesn’t
alleviate you from following the OpenSCAD license, so your entire
application would still have to be open sourced with a GPL compatible
license.
I know that, but, in m case, it's just for me, and maybe a friend or two,
so
it won't be a problem. I have no plans to productify it.
- As Torsten alluded towards, if you’re writing an app from scratch, why
not simply write it in Qt? That would make such embedding a lot easier.
You’d also acquire the experience to help working towards isolating
OpenSCAD’s viewer component into something embeddable. ..plus you’ll be
multi-platform ready.
I already have my application, and would prefer not to rewrite it.
That said, any technology that's at least somewhat standard would be
workable, most others could be done by encapsulating it.
In fact, once the interface is specified and the code partitioned as needed
(which probably is already more or less done internally anyway),
encapsulating that object in any embedding technology would probably be
fairly simple.
--
View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/
OpenSCAD-as-ActiveX-tp20249p20256.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
I would hope not (at least not ActiveX). That is a windows ONLY solution,
and OpenSCAD is cross platform.
--
Extra Ham Operator: K7AZJ
Registered Linux User: 275424
Raspberry Pi and Openscad developer
*The most exciting phrase to hear in science - the one that heralds new
discoveries - is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny...".*- Isaac. Asimov
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Troberg <troberg.anders@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2) Just to clarify: Embedding such a component into an application
> doesn’t
> alleviate you from following the OpenSCAD license, so your entire
> application would still have to be open sourced with a GPL compatible
> license.
>
> I know that, but, in m case, it's just for me, and maybe a friend or two,
> so
> it won't be a problem. I have no plans to productify it.
>
> > 4) As Torsten alluded towards, if you’re writing an app from scratch, why
> > not simply write it in Qt? That would make such embedding a lot easier.
> > You’d also acquire the experience to help working towards isolating
> > OpenSCAD’s viewer component into something embeddable. ..plus you’ll be
> > multi-platform ready.
>
> I already have my application, and would prefer not to rewrite it.
>
> That said, any technology that's at least somewhat standard would be
> workable, most others could be done by encapsulating it.
>
> In fact, once the interface is specified and the code partitioned as needed
> (which probably is already more or less done internally anyway),
> encapsulating that object in any embedding technology would probably be
> fairly simple.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/
> OpenSCAD-as-ActiveX-tp20249p20256.html
> Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> Discuss@lists.openscad.org
> http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
>
