...the idea is to limit the scope of possible changes
and rather directly accept a functor to transform the parameters.
We need then to account for the possible flexibility in processing-functor
arguments, while in fact only two cases must be actually handled.
''This proof-of-concept works in test setup''
It seemed that the integration test will end up as a dull repetition
of already coded stuff, just with more ports and thus more boilerplate;
and so I reconsidered what an actually relevant integration test might encompass
- getting parameters from the invocation
- translating and wiring parameters
- which entails to adapt / partially close a processing function!
Thus — surprise — there is a new feature not yet supported by the `NodeBuilder`,
which would be very likely to be used in many real-world use cases: which is
to adapt the parameter tuple expected by the binding from the library.
Obviously we want this, since many »raw« processing functions will expose a mix
of technical and artistic parameters; and we'd like to ''close'' the technical ones.
Such a feature ''should be implementable,'' based on the already developed
technique with the »cross builder«, which implies to switch the template arguments
from within a builder expression. We already do this very thing for adapting
parameter functor, and thus the main difficulty would be to compose an
adaptor functor to the correct argument of the processing functor...
Which is... (well, it is nasty and technical, yet feasible).
This was a lot of intricate technical work,
and is now verified in-depth, covering all possible cases.
__We can now__
* build Nodes
* verify in detail correct connectivity
* read Node-IDs and processing specifications
* maintain a symbolic spec for the arguments of a Port
(and beyond that, we can also **invoke nodes**, which remains to be formally verified)
This is a high-level integration test to sum up this development effort
* an advanced refactoring was carried out to introduce a
flexible and fully-typed binding for the ''processing-functor''
* this entailed a complete rework of the `FeedManifold` to integrate
inline storage for a ''parameter tuple'' and input / output ''buffer tuples''
* optional ''parameter functors'' were included into the design at a deep level,
closely related to the binding of the processing-functor
* the chosen design is thus a compromise between ''everything nodes''
and a ''dedicated parameter-handling'' at invocation level
As a proof-of-concept, an scheme to handle extended parameters was devised,
using a special »Param Agent Node« and extension storage blocks in stack memory.
While not immediately necessary, this design exercise proves the overall design
is flexible enough to accommodate future extended needs.
Actually this is now quite easy to implement, as a shortcut on top of generic functionality;
just in this case the param-functor takes a Time value as argument.
So its more a matter of documentation to provide a dedicated hook for this common case.
* ...by defining a parameter-functor to »drop off« a given value
* ...also add a static sanity check to reject unsuitable parameter-functor \\
(e.g. for a processing-functor with different or even no parameters)
This required some ''type massaging'' to construct the proper follow-up builder type;
other than that, all components work together as expected.
This can be demonstrated both in a direct setup and using the builder.
**This is a Milestone for the Render Engine integration effort**
After various rounds of prototyping and refactoring,
the Render Node builder and invocation code is now able to
* bind a simple function
* handle arbitrary input / output and parameter types
* invoke a Render Node configured with this function
This investigation started out as solving an already solved problem...
I'll continue this as a design exercise non the less.
__Some explanation__: To achieve the goal of invoking a Node end-to-end,
the gap between the `Port` API, the `ProcNode` API and the `RenderInvocation` must be closed.
This leads to questions of API design: ''what core operation should the `ProcNode` API expose?''
* is `ProcNode` just a forwarding / delegating container and becoming redundant?
* or does the API rather move in the direction of an ''Exit Node''?
This leads to the question how the opened `OutputSlot` can be exposed as a `BuffHandle`
to allow to set off the recursive Node invocation. As it turns out, the onerous for this step
lies on the actual `OutputSlot` implementation, since the API and output protocol already requires
to expose a `BuffHandle`. Yet there is no "real" implementation available, just a Mock setup based
on `DiagnosticBufferProvider`, which obviously can just be passed-through.
Which leaves me with mixed feelings. For one it is conveninent to skip this topic for now,
but on the other hand the design of `BufferProvider` does not seem well suited for such an proxying task.
Thus I decided to explore this aspect in the form of a prototyping test....
After this extended excursion to lift the internals of Node invocation
to the use of structured and typed data (notably the invocation parameters),
the »Playback Vertical Slice« continues to push ahead towards the goal of integration.
The existing code has been re-oriented and some aspects of node invocation have been reworked
in a prototyping effort, which (in part though the aforementioned rework)
is meanwhile on a good path to lead to a consolidated final version.
* ✔ building a simple Render Node works now with the revamped code
* 🔁invoking this simple Node ''should be just one step away'' (since all parts are known to work)
* ⌛ the next step would then be to build a Node outfitted with a ''Parameter Functor'', which is the new concept introduced by recent changes
* ⌛ this should then get us at the point to take the hurdle of invoking one of our **Random Test** functions as a Render Node
This is an attempt to take aim at the next step,
which is to fill in the missing part for an actual node invocation...
''...still fighting to get ahead, due to complexity of involced concerns...''
This was an extended digression into architecture planning,
which became necessary in order to suitably map out the role
for the `TurnoutSystem` — which can now be defined as ''mediator''
to connect and forward control- and parameter data while specific
render invocation proceeds through the render node network.
