Looking for feedback on an idea to hopefully merge Torque3D and Torque2D
by Peter C · in Torque 3D Professional · 03/23/2013 (9:37 pm) · 0 replies
Right now I'm considering ways to make Torque3D and Torque2D have a more common code base layout. I'm considering reorganizing Torque3D's code base to be laid out in the same style as Torque2D. My objective with this is to help make it easier for improvements in one engine to be ported to the other engine, and eventually merge the two code bases together, as well as to make it easier to modularize Torque3D and make it easier to work with when it comes time to thread/extend. I'm looking for feedback on the idea, so that way I have an idea of how accepted the idea would be as well as any suggestions/ideas for implementation.
My current plan is to copy as the majority of the code from Torque2D in to a branch of Torque3D, and proceed to move the 3D related content to a 3D folder. This will hopefully make it so that Torque3D and Torque2D could even possibly share the same repository, with 2D related changes going in the 2D related folders, and 3D related changes going in the 3D related folders. My ideal outcome is that the two engines merge together, so that 2D and 3D functionality can be swapped for as needed, while allowing for the common code (audio, math, platform, you get the idea) to be able to be shared between the two. Ideally, this would make it much easier for changes to benefit both the 2D and 3D components at the same time, while letting 2D and 3D specific functionality not interfere with each other.
While there will be some functionality that will clash, hopefully by making the functionality component based in the process, it will be possible to separate specific functionality while allowing common functionality to benefit both sides.
My current plan is to copy as the majority of the code from Torque2D in to a branch of Torque3D, and proceed to move the 3D related content to a 3D folder. This will hopefully make it so that Torque3D and Torque2D could even possibly share the same repository, with 2D related changes going in the 2D related folders, and 3D related changes going in the 3D related folders. My ideal outcome is that the two engines merge together, so that 2D and 3D functionality can be swapped for as needed, while allowing for the common code (audio, math, platform, you get the idea) to be able to be shared between the two. Ideally, this would make it much easier for changes to benefit both the 2D and 3D components at the same time, while letting 2D and 3D specific functionality not interfere with each other.
While there will be some functionality that will clash, hopefully by making the functionality component based in the process, it will be possible to separate specific functionality while allowing common functionality to benefit both sides.
