Opened at 2009-10-09T14:32:36Z
Closed at 2010-10-11T02:54:46Z
#302 closed todo (done)
Placement Scopes first draft
| Reported by: | Ichthyostega | Owned by: | Ichthyostega |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | grave | Milestone: | 0integration |
| Component: | lumieraSteam | Keywords: | design data session |
| Sub Tickets: | #309, #430, #455, #662 | Parent Tickets: | #108, #303, #323, #328, #356, #440 |
Description
Mostly I'm through with this design work; but it needs to be re-visited and finished for now. Details can be ommited regarding how to link a meta-clip into a Sequence.
Change history (15)
comment:1 by , at 2009-10-09T14:34:03Z
| blocking: | → 303 |
|---|
comment:2 by , at 2009-10-09T15:06:12Z
| blocking: | 303 → 108, 303 |
|---|
comment:3 by , at 2009-10-12T06:16:43Z
| blockedby: | → 309 |
|---|
comment:4 by , at 2009-10-12T06:30:15Z
| blockedby: | 309 → 309, 311 |
|---|
comment:5 by , at 2009-10-14T04:33:16Z
| blocking: | 108, 303 → 108, 303, 323 |
|---|
comment:6 by , at 2009-10-15T19:10:31Z
| blocking: | 108, 303, 323 → 108, 303, 323, 328 |
|---|
comment:7 by , at 2009-10-16T21:20:26Z
| Status: | new → accepted |
|---|
comment:8 by , at 2009-10-18T17:06:23Z
| blocking: | 108, 303, 323, 328 → 108, 303, 323, 328, 356 |
|---|
comment:9 by , at 2009-11-21T08:20:12Z
| blockedby: | 309, 311 → 309, 311, 430 |
|---|
comment:10 by , at 2009-11-27T18:53:26Z
| blocking: | 108, 303, 323, 328, 356 → 108, 303, 323, 328, 356, 440 |
|---|
comment:11 by , at 2009-12-13T03:04:49Z
| blockedby: | 309, 311, 430 → 309, 311, 430, 455 |
|---|
(In #455) oops... consequences can be fatal, thats not just a minor issue. While normally the LUID-based Hash-ID doesn't allow to create zero LUIDs, there is a rather straight forward way to sneak in such a value from within PlacementRef -- which is exactly what we need. Is this a hack? It looks ok-ish to me, as it happens right from within implementation level and right there where it's needed (the default ctor of PlacementRef).
Thus I'm headed towards using a 0-LUID to mark invalid -- but this needs to be complemented by a dedicated check on each index insert
comment:12 by , at 2010-09-26T03:56:59Z
| blockedby: | 309, 311, 430, 455 → 309, 311, 430, 455, 662 |
|---|
comment:13 by , at 2010-10-11T02:53:39Z
| blockedby: | 309, 311, 430, 455, 662 → 309, 430, 455, 662 |
|---|
The planning of timeline-sequence binding (#311) isn't finished yet, but I think this won't cause any significant changes to the design of the placement scopes. I consider the latter stable now, its even mostly implemented and passes the basic tests.
comment:14 by , at 2010-10-11T02:54:46Z
| Resolution: | → done |
|---|---|
| Status: | accepted → closed |
comment:15 by , at 2025-12-25T00:00:00Z
| blockedby: | 309, 430, 455, 662 |
|---|---|
| blocking: | 108, 303, 323, 328, 356, 440 |
| Parent Tickets: | → 108, 303, 323, 328, 356, 440 |
| Sub Tickets: | → 309, 430, 455, 662 |
Migration MasterTickets ⟼ Subtickets-plugin
now working on the Placement-Scope topic