itaps-parallel Two options from today's iMeshP phone conference

[Mark Beall]

On Jul 19, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Jason Kraftcheck wrote:

> Mark Beall wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 19, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Jason Kraftcheck wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd say that using the root set to mean both "no set" and "the  
>>>> set that
>>>> contains everything" is confusing. In iMesh_loadMesh (and most  
>>>> other
>>>> places I saw when I looked quickly) you can say that it means
>>>> "everything in the instance", which is the same as the root set.  
>>>> However
>>>> if there are places (now or in the future) where there is a  
>>>> meaningful
>>>> difference between the two things, that usage could become  
>>>> problematic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How does it mean 'the set that contains everything' in the  
>>> *load*Mesh
>>> case?
>>
>> Since the root set does contain everything and that's the set you're
>> passing, thus you did add the entities into the set you passed in.  
>> Yes,
>> the mesh entities get added to the root set anyhow, but it's at  
>> least a
>> little consistent (although I do think that passing a NULL set here
>> would be more clear).
>>
>
> And how is this different than the createEnt case?
>

Since we're trying to specify the part that the entity goes into in  
parallel. It's been pretty clearly established in the past that in  
iMesh/iMeshP parts are not entity sets (even though they may be in  
some implementations) even though there are a few entity set functions  
that are currently "overloaded" to also be able to take in parts  
(changing that was brought up at one point, I don't recall whether  
that ever was discussed)

Really this function should take in a part handle, not an entity set.  
The definition for iMeshP_PartHandle could easily be moved into  
iMesh.h. Should also at that time, changing it so that's it's not  
typedefed to iBase_EntitySetHandle.

mark