Proposed Spec Clarification : Input Nodes / Interface References#2814
Proposed Spec Clarification : Input Nodes / Interface References#2814kwokcb wants to merge 1 commit intoAcademySoftwareFoundation:mainfrom
Conversation
| A compound nodegraph provides a set of named input and output connection ports which may be referenced by its contained nodes using `interfacename` attributes, and interface token names whose values may be substituted into filenames used within the nodegraph; nodes within this <nodegraph> adopt the context of that nodegraph. The <input>s and <token>s of a compound nodegraph may also be connected to other nodes outside the <nodegraph> at the same scope as the <nodegraph> itself using `nodename` attributes; inputs of nodes within a compound nodegraph may only be connected to the outputs of other nodes within the same compound nodegraph, or to the input connection ports using interfacename. This is in contrast to a <backdrop> node whose contained nodes connect directly to nodes outside the backdrop at the same level of context without going through an intermediate named <input>. A <nodegraph> element of this form may specify the same float `width` and `height` and boolean `minimized` attributes as <backdrop> nodes. Inputs of other nodes, or the inputs of a compound nodegraph, can connect to an output of a (different) compound nodegraph using a `nodegraph` attribute (and for multiple-output compound nodegraphs, an `output` attribute as well) on a node's <input>. | ||
| A compound nodegraph provides a set of named input and output connection ports which may be referenced by its contained nodes using `interfacename` attributes, and interface token names whose values may be substituted into filenames used within the nodegraph; nodes within this <nodegraph> adopt the context of that nodegraph. | ||
|
|
||
| The <input> ports of a compound graph may reference <input> nodes outside the <nodegraph> at the same scope as the <nodegraph> itself using `interfacename` attributes, but may not reference sibling <input> ports within the nodegraph. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Only this part is new.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We may want to consider a specification-document-wide review of the usage of the terms "element" vs. "port", as sometimes <input>s are referred to as "elements", sometimes (now) as "nodes", and sometimes as "ports". I think this only applies to <input>s and <output>s (where the term "port" makes sense to use), not globally.
|
|
||
| ### Input Nodes | ||
|
|
||
| Input nodes (<input>) may be defined at the root level of a MaterialX document. The input values of these nodes are considered to be part of the interface of the document. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unsure what the "proper" name is for this so have called them "input nodes".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To me, a "Node" is something that would be shown as a standalone block in a graph editor; earlier in the document (within the "Nodes" section), they are referred to as "Input elements", as they are children of the node element.
If we want to support <input>s as a root-level node, maybe we should clarify that "Input nodes may only be placed at the root level of a document", although this then immediately causes confusion about <input> elements placed immediately within a node (as has always been allowed).
Further thought on wording is required.
kwokcb
changed the title
| Input nodes may not be connected to the output of any node or nodegraph. | ||
|
|
||
| ```xml | ||
| <add name="node_reference" type="color3" /> | ||
| <nodegraph name="nodegraph_reference" /> | ||
| <input name="input_node_reference" type="color3" value="0, 0, 0" /> | ||
| <input name="input_node_1" type="color3" interfacename="input_node_reference" /> | ||
| <input name="input_node_2" type="color3" nodename="node_reference" /> | ||
| <input name="input_node_3" type="color3" nodegraph="nodegraph_reference" /> | ||
| ``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm assuming that by "Input nodes", you mean "Root-level input nodes", as we're only adding Input "nodes" at the root level, other <input> semantics within nodes and nodegraphs are unchanged from previous syntax.
Given that, I am confused about this example: the text says that input nodes may not be connected to the output of any node or nodegraph (which sounds correct to me), but then the example shows input nodes with exactly that kind of prohibited connection.
|
|
||
| Input nodes (<input>) may be defined at the root level of a MaterialX document. The input values of these nodes are considered to be part of the interface of the document. | ||
|
|
||
| Input ports on nodes or nodegraphs may referenced input nodes at the same scope as the node or nodegraph by specifying the name of the input node as the value of the `interfacename` attribute of the port. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Typo: "referenced" should be "reference".
| ```xml | ||
| <nodegraph name="nodegraph"> | ||
| <input name="graph_input" type="color3" interfacename="root_input" /> | ||
| </nodegraph> | ||
| <add name="add" type="color3"> | ||
| <input name="in1" type="color3" interfacename="root_input" /> | ||
| <input name="in2" type="color3" value="0, 0, 0" /> | ||
| </add> | ||
| <input name="root_input" type="color3" value="0, 0, 0" /> | ||
| ``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The ordering of elements in this example is confusing- for clarity, the "root_input" <input> should be declared first, then the <add>, and then the <nodegraph>.
2 participants
Change
This is some additional wording to clarify the definition of "root" level input nodes
This includes clarifying usage of
interfacenamefrom nodegraph input interfaces.