drmacro wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 6:28 pm
Hmm...maybe you need to define what a "hook" is?
Well, you create in the sketcher two circles with a diameter of 10, separated with 15mm. So they are are independent of each other. Then you pad it with a length of 10. You get an error message that says: "Pad: Result has multiple solids. This is not supported at this time.".
This is what I mean with a "hook". But this simple exercise also shows that PD already allows only ONE body, where the Part WB allows many.
I can think of different areas of the code base that would need to change considerably. The Python API, probably the internal data structure, the interface between FreeCAD and the OpenCASCADE kernel (maybe COIN as well), the internal structure of the document, a good bit of the wiki, most of the training material that does exist, it would obsolete most of the content on YouTube (though admittedly, there is much of it that is garbage anyway...), it would likely have a major effect on the effort to merge TNP mitigation.
That is -for the first time- an answer to my question. Thank you! And now question two: What do you roughly think that the LOC count is that is involved with this? Three, Four or Five digits? I think Four.
For very little, if any, return on investment. A branch would need to be made where this was implemented and benchmarked against the existing code base to see if there were any performance improvements.
As noted...fairly unlikely I think.
To be honest, I think it depends on the number of former Pro/E (Creo), SW, SE and Inventor users, but I consider that number pretty high.
adrianinsaval wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 6:50 pm
What is clear is that there isn't interest form other devs to do it, if you want to implement it yourself go ahead, but it must be optional and easily convertible to regular FCStd files, it should not require changes to wb commands or it will not be enforceable. You have to look at how document loading and saving/backup work, you'll have to find a way to restrict adding objects per type. It is no easy task and IMO not worth the effort.
for those listing benefit/disadvantages of a mandatory split files, it's useless chatter, it will not happen as it is just not acceptable. Discussion should be done considering an optional situation where if desired one can choose to use a different filetype that holds only certain type of objects.
You keep on talking mandatory, where I keep on talking optional. To be honest, I think that you are quite right and that there is not much interest in the developers, but once they start using it I am pretty sure that this is gonna work out pretty well, because this is the way it works in their former CAD software.