Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Expand bevy plugin usage options #188

Merged

Conversation

garryod
Copy link
Collaborator

@garryod garryod commented Mar 29, 2023

Ass ability to:

  • Create a MatchboxSocket for direct insertion as a Resource
  • Use MatchboxSocket as a Component

Todo:

  • Utilities for MatchboxSocket as a Component

@johanhelsing
Copy link
Owner

johanhelsing commented Mar 30, 2023

I think we can keep the Command extensions, but I don't think there's any need to use actual commands? That would bring the sockets up and running immediately instead of at the next flush of command buffers.

@garryod garryod force-pushed the improved-bevy-matchbox-socket branch from dcb826b to 0b49d01 Compare March 30, 2023 15:23
@garryod
Copy link
Collaborator Author

garryod commented Mar 30, 2023

I think we can keep the Command extensions, but I don't think there's any need to use actual commands? That would bring the sockets up and running immediately instead of at the next flush of command buffers.

Is there a reason you would want to bring them up immediately instead of joining the command queue? Surely joining the queue is the canonical way of behaving?

@garryod garryod force-pushed the improved-bevy-matchbox-socket branch from 0b49d01 to 5639312 Compare March 30, 2023 15:40
@johanhelsing
Copy link
Owner

johanhelsing commented Mar 30, 2023

I think we can keep the Command extensions, but I don't think there's any need to use actual commands? That would bring the sockets up and running immediately instead of at the next flush of command buffers.

Is there a reason you would want to bring them up immediately instead of joining the command queue? Surely joining the queue is the canonical way of behaving?

Just that we're kind of just reimplementing a special case of commands.insert_resource there's no need to do it. It will be available to other systems at the same time anyway.

@johanhelsing
Copy link
Owner

I think this is fine to merge as is, would be good to have it in 0.6.

@johanhelsing johanhelsing marked this pull request as ready for review March 30, 2023 16:29
@johanhelsing johanhelsing merged commit d7696ad into johanhelsing:main Mar 30, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants