US 6,198,487 B1Grant
Ole for design and modeling
Issue Date:2001-03-06
•23 Claims
•25 Drawing Sheets
Abstract
A method for manipulating a first three-dimensional object, in a computer system including a display, a first software application, and a second software application. The present method includes the step of creating a model of the first three-dimensional object with the first software application, which has a first three-dimensional object with the first system. A step of storing the model of the first three-dimensional object in a model format is also included. The present method further includes the step retrieving the model of the first three-dimensional object in the model format into a second software application, the second software application having a second coordinate system. The present method also includes the step of manipulating a view of the model of the first three-dimensional object with the second software application and within the second coordinate system.
Metadata
Assignee
- Intergraph Corporation
Inventors
- Mark D. Fortenbery
- Cameron M. Stubbs
- Dominique J. Payannet
- Robert Patience
Application Information
Application Number:US 09/258,595
Filing Date:1999-02-26
Priority Date:1995-01-23
Art Unit:7
Classifications
IPC:
G06F 1500
Field of Search:
345418345419345420345433345441345442345443
Patent Drawings (25 sheets)
Description
[0002] This application is a continuation of Ser. No. 08/855,775 filed May 12, 1997, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,910,804 which is a continuation of Ser. No. 08/878,251 filed Jan. 23, 1995, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,682,468.
Copyright Notice
[0003] A portion of the disclosure of this patent contains material which is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by any of the patent document or the patent disclosure as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reverse all copyright rights whatsoever.
Background of the Invention
[0004] The present invention relates generally to the area of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) software, and more specifically to methods for enabling the transfer of three-dimensional data between CAD/CAM software applications.
[0005] Object Linking and Embedding (OLE) Overview
[0006] Within the office environment, one method that has been developed to enable “cutting” and “pasting” of data between software applications is “object linking and embedding (OLE). OLE defines standardized interfaces and functions enabling users to transfer “objects” between software applications. The following section is an abbreviated overview of some of the concepts used in OLE version 2.0, from Microsoft Corporation of Belleview, Wash., and defines some of the terms that will be used in the disclosure. Further information and details about OLE may be obtained from “Inside OLE 2” by Kraig Brockschmidt, 1994, Microsoft Press, hereby incorporated by reference.
[0007] An example of cutting and pasting data between software applications is illustrated in FIG. 1. FIG. 1 illustrates a two-dimensional object 1 created in a first software application being transferred into a second software application. The first and second software applications (not shown) are commonly specialized software applications such as spread-sheets, word processors, or graphics programs. Once two-dimensional object 1 has been transferred, the second software application can manipulate its own data, two-dimensional object 2, so that two-dimensional object 2 interacts with two-dimensional object 1. The resulting document is then output to the user.
[0008] OLE provides a set of “interfaces”, or groups of functions, which when combined provide the mechanics enabling the user to transfer data between programs. FIG. 2 illustrates the convention for representing an OLE interface 10, for an object 11 and a “consumer” 12 of the object. Object 11 is said to have an “interface implementation”, including interfaces 13 and 14, that are analogous to an object oriented programming “class.” Interfaces 13 and 14 include member functions 15 and 16, respectively, that are analagous to object oriented programming class “instances”.
[0009] Consumer 12 receives data from object 11 by calling functions of interface 13 and/or interface 14. In some cases the consumer may only be aware of one of several interfaces available in an object. In response to the function calls, object 10 may return specific data about itself to the consumer 12. Object 10, however maintains exclusive control of its own data 17. As further illustrated in FIG. 2, IUnknown is an interface available to all object, that when queried for specific interfaces, returns pointers to the requested interface. For example, assuming consumer 12 knows which functions are available in interface 13, consumer 12 can ask and receive a pointer to interface 14. Then, once consumer 12 receives a pointer to interface 14, consumer 12 can call member functions 16.
[0010] The functions provided in the currently available OLE standardize the transfer of placement and size information, of objects between software applications. Two type of “transferring” objects from a first software application to a second software application include “linking” and “embedding”.
[0011] “Linking” an object that is created in a first software application to a second software application is when the object maintains its existence separate from the second software application, although the second software application can “use” and reference the object. Linking also allows the user to modify and edit the object with the first software application without having to invoke the second software application.
[0012] “Embedding” a first data object into a second software application is when the object is actually integrated with the data stored and used by the second software application. Embedding allows the user to modify and edit the object only after first invoking the second software application.
[0013] “Linking” an object is commonly preferred when the linked object includes a large quantity of data. One drawback to linking however, includes maintaining and remembering the particular path or directory of the linked object in the computer memory. “Embedding” an object is commonly preferred when the positioning and relationship of the embedded object to other data within the second software application is important to maintain. One drawback to embedding however, includes that the embedded object cannot be edited or modified by the user without invoking the second software application.
[0014] Two other commonly used OLE terms are “servers” and “containers”. As illustrated in FIG. 2, the data 17 actually is only a portion of the object 10. The functions 15 and 16 serve to manipulate data 17 and to convey this data to the consumer 12. Because object 10 “serves” and manages the data, it is often called a “server”. A “container” is defined as the user of the information contained within the server. In FIG. 2, the container is consumer 12. In a macroscopic scale, in the example in FIG. 1, the server is the first software application which manages object 1, and the container is the second software application. A container may access multiple servers, one for each object within the container's “environment” and further, containers and servers may be nested.
[0015] The term “In Place Activation” is another important term in OLE. “In Place” activation enables a first software application to be active within a second software application. As illustrated in FIG. 1, an object 1 created in a spreadsheet application is inserted into a document 2 created by a word processing application. Without In Place activation capability, once object 1 is inserted into document 2, if the user wishes to revise the entries in object 1, normally the user would have to quit the word processing application, enter the spreadsheet application, revise object 1, reinvoke the word processing program and then transfer the revised object 1. This indirect manner of editing transferred object occurs because the software application receiving the object only recognizes the object as a two-dimensional black box. With In Place activation, the user can directly invoke the spread sheet application from within the word processing application. OLE provides the interface capability for the two software applications so they can communicate with each other. As a result, the user can revise object 1 using the spreadsheet application without quitting the word processor application.
[0016] OLE version 2.0 is currently available with Microsoft Corporation's Windows™ operating system version 3.1. Currently many office environment software applications such as Microsoft Corporation's Excel and Word support OLE standards and interfaces. As was illustrated in FIG. 1, object 1, created in a first software application such as a spread sheet, is transferred into a second software application such as a word processor. Among other variables passed between the software applications, the second software application needs to know the two-dimensional size of the object 1 so that it can make room for it in the document. The second software application obtains the two-dimensional size of first data object 1 by calling and relying on OLE functions. Based upon the two-dimensional size, the second software application can modify its own data, object 2, to “wrap around” object 1.
[0017] OLE is not limited to two-dimensional objects and is also used to incorporate and transfer audio and video data between software applications. Current OLE functions work well with office environment data objects, i.e., two-dimensional objects that are defined by a two-dimensional bounding boxes. OLE functions however, only allow the user to perform rudimentary two-dimensional functions on the boxes such as resizing, locating, and rotating.
[0018] CAD/CAM Marker Overview
[0019] Application software specifically designed for architectural and engineering purposes are commonly labeled Computer Aided Design (CAD) and Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM) software. Some of the standard features of the CAD/CAM applications is the ability to create and manipulate three-dimensional objects and to position three-dimensional objects relative to other three-dimensional objects.
[0020] As illustrated in FIG. 3, a three-dimensional object in a CAD/CAM environment is typically represented as a two-dimensional image to the user in the form of a print-out or display. Examples of commonly displayed views of a three-dimensional object are a top, right-side, front, and isometric views. FIG. 3 illustrates that a top view, a right-side view, and a front view of three-dimensional object 20 are derived from orthogonal projections onto a top two-dimensional plane 21, a right-side two-dimensional viewing plane 22, and a front two-dimensional viewing plane 23, respectively. FIG. 3, also illustrates that an isometric view of three-dimensional object 20 is derived from projections onto isometric viewing plane 24.
[0021] In the past, CAD/CAM software applications were tightly coupled to specialized computer hardware because of the heavy computational and display demands of the software. Because of this specialization, these CAD/CAM workstations were complete, self-contained working environments. Once the user one vendor's workstations, there would be little possibility to use another vendor's workstations due to cost considerations. Because the user tended to stay with a particular vendor in the past, there was little need to transfer three-dimensional objects created in a first CAD/CAM application to a second CAD/CAM application.
[0022] With the increase in processing capabilities of personal computers, personal computers are now replacing the traditional workstations of the design engineer. This shift in the CAD/CAM computing environment has lessened the ties of the user to a particular vendor and now allows the user to choose the CAD/CAM application that best suits the problem or the user's preferences. In addition, with the increase in computing platforms, more than one engine can now work on the same problem simultaneously.
[0023] Currently, CAD/CAM packages from different vendors rely upon proprietary data formats and do not allow the user to transfer objects created in one software application to another vendor's software application. Thus although computer hardware has become more advanced, the CAD/CAM software has not. What is needed are software functions and tools that enable the user to transfer data objects created by a first CAD/CAM software application into a second CAD/CAM software application.
[0024] Currently, if the user attempted to use the present two-dimensional functions of OLE and apply them in the area of CAD/CAM applications, the shape of a three-dimensional object would fail to be transferred. FIG. 4 illustrates a front view 30 of a first three-dimensional object created by a first software application and an isometric view 31 of a second three-dimensional object created by a second software application. Consistent with the OLE standard, front view 30 is defined by a bounding box 32 having dimensions 33 and 34. When front view 30 is transferred to the second software application, the second software application merely sees two-dimensional bounding box 32 and has no understanding of how to integrate the two objects in three-dimensional space. Because office environment concepts of data objects are only two-dimensional objects that are defined by two-dimensional bounding boxes, OLE is ill suited for use in the field of CAD/CAM applications. Further, even if it were somehow possible to transfer the two-dimensional shape of a first three-dimensional object into a second software application, OLE does not provide a mechanism for transferring depth information of an object.
[0025] What is needed is a standardized method for allowing the user to transfer three-dimensional data between software applications.
Summary of the Invention
[0026] The present invention provides enhancements and extensions to OLE for the CAD/CAM environment that allows the user to transfer an object created by a first software application to a second software application, while preserving the three-dimensional nature of the object.
Brief Description of the Drawings
[0027] FIG. 1 illustrates a two-dimensional object 1 created in a first software application being transferred into a second software application;
[0028] FIG. 2 illustrates the convention for representing an OLE interface, for an object and a “consumer” of the object;
[0029] FIG. 3 illustrates that a top view, a right-side view, and a front view of three-dimensional object are derived from orthogonal projections onto a top two-dimensional viewing plane, a right-side two-dimensional viewing plane, and a front two-dimensional viewing plane, respectively;
[0030] FIG. 4 illustrates a front view of a first three-dimensional object created by a first software application and an isometric view of a second three-dimensional object created by a second software application;
[0031] FIG. 5 illustrates that a first three-dimensional object is created with a first software application and a second three-dimensional object is created in a second software application;
[0032] FIG. 6 illustrates the concept of transparency with a display of a three-dimensional object and a two-dimensional object in a three-dimensional coordinate system;
[0033] FIG. 7 is a block diagram of a system according to a preferred embodiment of the present invention;
[0034] FIG. 8 illustrates the IOle3DObject interface in a user interface of an object;
[0035] FIG. 9 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of determining whether the object is a three-dimensional object;
[0036] FIGS. 10aand 10billustrate two different orientations of an object with regard to its own coordinate system and with regard to a container's coordinate system;
[0037] FIGS. 11aand 11bare flow diagrams of one embodiment of the process of determining the actual extent of a three-dimensional object within a container using IOle3DObject::Get3DExtent;
[0038] FIG. 12 illustrates that a three-dimensional object 310 and a two-dimensional object are inserted into in a three-dimensional container;
[0039] FIG. 13 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of determining whether a two-dimensional container can retrieve a view of a three-dimensional object;
[0040] FIG. 14 illustrates a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of a two-dimensional container calling GetDefaultView to display a default view of a three-dimensional object;
[0041] FIG. 15 illustrates a default view (the front view) of a three-dimensional object is inserted into a two-dimensional container;
[0042] FIG. 16 illustrates a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of calling SetView to allow a two-dimensional container to set and display a view of a three-dimensional object;
[0043] FIG. 17 illustrates a view of a three-dimensional object that is inserted in a two-dimensional container;
[0044] FIG. 18 illustrates the IViewGLObject interface for a user interface of an object;
[0045] FIG. 19 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of determining whether the object supports OpenGL COM;
[0046] FIG. 20 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of having a server displaying the object by calling OpenGL COM functions;
[0047] FIG. 21 illustrates the IOleInPlace3CObject interface for a user interface of an object;
[0048] FIG. 22 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of determining whether the three-dimensional object supports In Place activation;
[0049] FIG. 23 illustrates that the attachment matrix between the server's coordinate system and the container's coordinate system is initially calculated;
[0050] FIG. 24 illustrates a top view, a front view, and a right-side view of a three-dimensional object;
[0051] FIG. 25 illustrates the IOleInPlace3DSite interface for a user interface for a three-dimensional object;
[0052] FIG. 26 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of determining whether the three-dimensional object supports In Place activation;
[0053] FIG. 27 illustrates an object is embedded into a first container and first container embedded into a second container;
[0054] FIG. 28 illustrates the attachment matrix between the In Place active server's coordinate system and the immediately adjacent container's coordinate system is initially calculated;
[0055] FIG. 29 illustrates the IOleInPlaceViews interface for a user interface for a three-dimensional object;
[0056] FIG. 30 illustrates a IOleInPlaceActive3DObject interface for a user interface;
[0057] FIG. 31 illustrates the IOleLocate interface for a user interface of an object;
[0058] FIG. 32 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of locating elements in an object using the PointLocate function;
[0059] FIG. 33 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of locating elements in an object using the ShapeLocate function;
[0060] FIGS. 34a-34cillustrate the use of the IOleLocate::PointLocate function; and
[0061] FIG. 35 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of in-place activating.
Description of the Preferred Embodiment
[0062] One of the objectives of the following OLE extensions is to enable the user to transfer three-dimensional objects between software applications. An example of this is illustrated in FIG. 5. In FIG. 5 a first three-dimensional object 40 is created with a first software application and a second three-dimensional object 41 is created in a second software application. First three-dimensional object 40 includes top leg 42, bottom leg 43, and slot 44. When first three-dimensional object 50 is retrieved into the second software application, the second software application should be able to resize, rotate, and manipulate the first three-dimensional object as one of its own. (However the second software application will still not be able to edit the object.) As illustrated in FIG. 5, first three-dimensional object 40 and second three-dimensional object 41 are both rotated in the three-dimensional coordinate system of the second software application and are assembled. The second software application should be able to recognize the three-dimensional nature of first three-dimensional object 40, by allowing top leg 42 to obscure a portion of second three-dimensional object 41 and by allowing second three-dimensional object 41 to obscure a portion of bottom leg 43.
[0063] One specific result of the following OLE extensions is to enable three-dimensional objects to have transparent bounding boxes. FIG. 6 illustrates the concept of transparency with a display 50 of a three-dimensional object 51 and a two-dimensional object 52 in a three-dimensional coordinate system. Three-dimensional object 51 includes slot 53 and two-dimensional object 52 includes area 54.
[0064] The Current OLE enables the user to transfer two-dimensional “black boxes” of information without regard to the contents of the box. If a first three-dimensional object is returned into the second software application, the second-software application should receive the actual shape of the three-dimensional object, and not obscure more of the image than necessary when transferred. As illustrated in FIG. 6, with the following OLE extensions the second software application recognizes that slot 53 allows the user to see through object 51, i.e. object 51 is transparent in slot 53, and thus the underlying two-dimensional object 52 remains visible in area 54.
[0065] In sum, adding the following described extensions to OLE provides the following capability 1) enabling the communication between three-dimensional objects, servers, and containers, as well as enabling communication between two-dimensional containers and three-dimensional objects and servers, and enabling communication between three-dimensional containers and two-dimensional objects 2) enabling three-dimensional servers to navigate within a two or three-dimensional container environment, including enabling multiple In Place active views; and 3) enabling three-dimensional objects to interact with other objects within the container environment.
[0066] It is believed that one familiar with OLE, as described in “Inside OLE 2” by Kraig Brockschmidt, would be able to readily use the following OLE extensions based upon the following disclosure. Further details about the preferred method for enabling such transfer of data are detailed in the following sections.
[0067] System Overview
[0068] FIG. 7 is a block diagram of a system 60 according to a preferred embodiment of the present invention. System 60 includes a display monitor 61, a computer 62, a keyboard 63, and a mouse 64. Computer 62 includes familiar computer components such as a processor 65, and memory storage devices such as a random access memory (RAM) 66, a disk drive 67, and a system bus 68 interconnecting the above components. Mouse 64 is but one example of a graphical input device, a digitizing tablet 65 is an example of another.
[0069] In a preferred embodiment, system 60 includes a IBM PC compatible personal computer, running Windows™ operating system Version 3.1 and OLE 2.0 by Microsoft Corporation, and Avalon™ software, currently under development by Intergraph Corporation. The appendix includes preferred embodiments of the Avalon™ OLE extensions described below, written in Visual C++. The appendix also includes sample source code programs that incorporate the Avalon™ Ole extensions.
[0070] FIG. 7 is representative of but one type of system for embodying the present invention. It will be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that many system types and configurations are suitable for use in conjunction with the present invention.
[0071] Three-Dimensional Extensions to OLE
[0072] 0. Type Definitions
[0073] 1. Interface Enabling Three-Dimensional Object Handling
[0074] 1.1. IOle3DObject interface
[0075] 1.2. IViewGLObject interface
[0076] 1.3. IOleInPlace3DObject interface
[0077] 2. Interfaces Enabling Navigation of A Container Environment
[0078] 2.1. IOleInPlace3DSite interface
[0079] 2.2. IOleInPlaceViews interface
[0080] 2.3. IOleInPlaceActive3DObject interface
[0081] 3. Interface Enabling Three-Dimensional Object Interaction
[0082] 3.1. IOleLocate interface
[0083] 0. Type Definitions
[0084] The following are type definitions, described in the preferred embodiment in C++, used in the descriptions of the preferred embodiment of the formal OLE extension interfaces.
[0085] 1. Interfaces Enabling Three-Dimensional Object Handling
[0086] The new OLE interfaces as described herein allow containers and servers, both which manipulate three-dimensional objects, to take advantage of the third dimension while maintaining backwards capability. Specifically, the new interfaces allow two-dimensional objects to be inserted into three-dimensional containers and three-dimensional objects into two-dimensional containers. Manipulation of an object however, still does not add the capability of editing a transferred object.
[0087] Hereinafter, unless specified, the term “container” refers to a container that supports either two-dimensional or three-dimensional objects, and the term “object” refers to a three-dimensional object or a two-dimensional object.
[0088] 1.1 IOle3DObject Interface
[0089] The IOle3DObject interface is an extension of the existing OLE IOleObject interface and allows a three-dimensional container to retrieve three-dimensional information about an object. IOle3Dobject functions are used in the same programming context as the IOleObject functions, with added functionality described below. The IOle3Object interface also allows a two-dimensional container that understands three-dimensions to specify and retrieve a view of a three-dimensional object.
[0090] FIG. 8 illustrates the IOle3DObject interface 70 in a user interface 72 of an object. User interface 72 includes an IUnknown interface 74 that is available in all OLE objects, and an IOleObject interface 76 that is also available in all OLE objects. IUnknown interface 74 includes an interface implementation having a function 78, that when called returns a pointer to IOle3dObject interface 70 if the object is a three-dimensional object and a function 80, that when called returns a pointer to IOleOBject interface 76. IOleObject interface 76 includes an implemtation having a function 82 that when called returns a pointer to IOle3dObject interface 70 if the object is a three-dimensional object. IOle3DObject interface 70 includes an implementation having functions 84, 86, 88, 90, and 92, which are described below.
[0091] FIG. 9 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of determining whether the object is a three-dimensional object.
[0092] During initialization of an object, (e.g., creating or loading an object) the container queries IUnknown function 78 for a pointer to IOle3DObject interface 70 (step 100). At the same time, the container queries IUknown function 80 for a pointer to IOleObject interface 76 in case the object is not a three-dimensional object (step 110).
[0093] In a preferred embodiment, the container further queries IOleObject function 82 for a pointer to IOle3DObject interface 70. Once IOle3DObject interface 70 is located, the container queries IO1E3DObject function 84 and ensures there is a pointer to IOleObject interface 76.
[0094] If the query of IOleObject function 82 or IUnknown function 78 return a NULL pointer (step 120), the object is not a three-dimensional object and the container must treat the object as a two-dimensional object (step 130). If the above queries return a pointer to IO1E3DObject interface 70 the container can treat the object as a three-dimensional object (step 140).
[0095] In practical terms, if a first software application creates a three-dimensional object using the OLE IOle3DObject interface extensions described herein, a second software application, will then be able to call IOle3DObject functions to obtain three-dimensional data about the object.
[0096] The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of the formal IOle3DObject interface:
[0097] 1.1.1. IOle3DObject::Get3DExtent
[0098] The first IOle3DObject function GET3DExtent returns the “extents” (or range) of an object in three-dimensions in response to being called by a container. This function is roughly analogous to the current OLE function IOleObject:: GetExtent except a third dimension is included. An object that supports the IOle3Object interface must also support the IOleObject interface in order to be backwards compatible with two-dimensional containers.
[0099] Before the Get3DExtent function is called, the container must first calculate an “attachment” matrix. An attachment matrix is a mapping between a three-dimensional object's system to the container's system, as illustrated in FIGS. 10aand 10b.
[0100] FIGS. 10aand 10billustrate two different orientations of an object 160 with regard to its own coordinate system 170 and with regard to a container's coordinate system 180. As illustrated, the object 160 can be moved, rotated, and resized in three dimensions with respect to coordinate system 180. The size and orientation of object 160 relative to its own coordinate system 170 however remains constant. The container keeps track of the positioning and size of object 160 within its coordinate system 180 by calculating and maintaining an attachment matrix that maps coordinate system 170 to coordinate system 180.
[0101] FIGS. 11aand 11bare flow diagrams of one embodiment of the process of determining the actual extent of a three-dimensional object within a container using IOle3DObject::Get3DExtent.
[0102] In FIG. 11a, for a container to calculate the actual size of an object within the container's coordinate system, an attachment matrix is first calculated (step 200).
[0103] Once the attachment matrix is calculated, the container calls IO1E3DObject::Get3DExtent (step 210). As just described with FIGS. 10aand 10b, although a container manipulates the view of the object within the container's coordinate system, the object maintains its relationship to its own coordinate system. In response to the function call Get3DExtent, the server returns the extent, or range, of the object relative to its own coordinate system.
[0104] Once the attachment matrix and the extent of the object have been determined, the container then calculates the extent of the object within the container's coordinate system (step 220), in the preferred embodiment by multiplying the attachment matrix to the extent values.
[0105] In the situation where the object is two-dimensional and the container is three-dimensional, the extents of the object can still be calculated, as illustrated in FIG. 11b. An attachment matrix is first calculated in step 240.
[0106] Once this attachment matrix has been calculated, the container calls the standard OLE function IOleObject::GetExtent (step 250). In response to this function call, the server returns the two-dimensional extent of the object relative to its own coordinate system. Next, the container calculates the actual extent of the object within the container's coordinate system (step 260), in the preferred embodiment by multiplying the attachment matrix to the extent values.
[0107] The implications of mapping a two-dimensional object into a three-dimensional container are illustrated in FIG. 12. In FIG. 12, a three-dimensional object 310 and a two-dimensional object 320 are inserted into a three-dimensional container. The original two-dimensional object 330 is also illustrated. Because a two-dimensional object is mapped into three-dimensional space, the object can be manipulated in three dimensions by the container and can interact with other objects such as three-dimensional object 310.
[0108] The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of the formal Get3DExtent interface:
[0109] 1.1.2 IOle3DObject::GetDefaultView
[0110] The next DO1e3DObject function GetDefaultView specifically provides a two-dimensional container the ability to retrieve a predefined view of a three-dimensional object. As was illustrated in FIG. 3, a three-dimensional object is typically viewed as a two-dimensional object on a viewing plane. One view such as front view 23, is further predefined as a default view.
[0111] FIG. 13 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of determining whether a two-dimensional container can retrieve a view of a three-dimensional object.
[0112] If a two-dimensional container does not support three-dimensional objects, i.e. is not aware of the IOle3DObject interface, the two-dimensional container queries IUnknown function 76 in FIG. 7 for a pointer to IOleObject interface 76 (steps 350 and 360). If the two-dimensional container supports three-dimensional objects, the two-dimensional container queries IUnknown function 78 for a pointer to IOle3DObject interface 70 (steps 350 and 370).
[0113] If the query of IUnknown function 78 returns a NULL pointer (step 380), the object is not a three-dimensional object and the container treats the object as a conventional two-dimensional object. When either the object is two-dimensional, or the container does not support a three-dimensional object, the container retrieves a conventional two-dimensional view of the object (step 4390). If the query in step 380 returns a pointer to IOle3DObject interface 70 the container treats the object as a three-dimensional object (step 400).
[0114] Once the container determines it can support a three-dimensional object, the container retrieves a two-dimensional view of the object.
[0115] FIG. 14 illustrates a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of a two-dimensional container calling GetDefaultView to display a default view of a three-dimensional object.
[0116] Before the GetDefaultView function is called, the container must first calculate a “transformation” matrix between the server's three-dimensional coordinate system and the display's two-dimensional coordinate system. Another term used for this matrix is a “server world to view” matrix, where the server world is the object's coordinate system and the “view” is the display's coordinate system.
[0117] In FIG. 14, for a server to determine the display position of the default view of the object on the display, the “transformation matrix” is first calculated (step 420).
[0118] Once the transformation matrix is calculated, the container calls IOle3DObject::GetDefaultView (step 430) and passes the transformation matrix to the server. Based upon the transformation matrix, the server displays a default view of the object to the display (step 440). The actual process of a server displaying the object will be discussed later in this disclosure.
[0119] The result of a two-dimensional container retrieving a default view of a three-dimensional object and displaying it is illustrated in FIG. 15. In FIG. 15 a default view 460 (the front view) of a three-dimensional object 470 is inserted into a two-dimensional container. After the container retrieves the three-dimensional object and passes the transformation matrix to the server, the server calculates and displays default view 460 to the display. The actual process of a server displaying the object will be discussed later in this disclosure. Because the container is also aware of the transformation matrix and positioning of the object, as illustrated, the container can then manipulate its data 480 to interact with default view 460.
[0120] The actual display position of the three-dimensional object in the container is governed by the variable 1prcPosRect returned by the function call OleInPlaceSite::GetWindowContext as described in “Inside OLE 2” described above.
[0121] The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of the formal GetDefaultView interface:
[0122] 1.1.3 IOle3DObject::SetView
[0123] The third IOle3DObject function specifically provides a two-dimensional container the ability to specify a view of the three-dimensional object. As is illustrated in FIG. 3, three-dimensional container must be view and displayed from a viewing plane. The present function allows a two-dimensional container to define that viewing plane.
[0124] FIG. 16 illustrates a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of calling SetView to allow a two-dimensional container to set and display a view of a three-dimensional object.
[0125] In FIG. 16, for a server to determine the display position of the default view on a display, a transformation matrix (as described above) between the server's coordinate system and the display's coordinate is first calculated is first calculated (step 490).
[0126] Once the transformation matrix is calculated, the container calls IOle3DObject::SetView (step 500) and passes the transformation matrix to the server. Based upon the transformation matrix, the server displays a view of the object to the display (step 510). The actual process of a server displaying the object will be discussed later in this disclosure.
[0127] The result of a two-dimensional container defining a view of a three-dimensional object is illustrated in FIG. 17. In FIG. 17 a view 530 of a three-dimensional object is inserted in a two-dimensional container. After the container retrieves the three-dimensional object and passes the transformation matrix to the server, the server calculates and displays view 530 to the display. Because the container is also aware of the transformation matrix and positioning of the object, as illustrated, the container can then manipulate its data 540 to interact with view 530.
[0128] The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of the formal SetView interface:
[0129] 1.2. IViewGLObject
[0130] The IViewGLObject interface is an extension of the existing OLE IViewObject and allows a three-dimensional server to render a view of the object using IGL interface routines. IViewObject functions are used in the same programming context as the IViewObject functions, with added functionality described below. The IGL interface, OpenGL COM, includes standardized three-dimensional graphics rendering functions.
[0131] FIG. 18 illustrates the IViewGLObject interface 550 for a user interface 560 of an object. User interface 560 includes an IUnknown interface 570 that is available in all OLE objects, and an IViewObject interface 580 that is also available in all OLE objects. IUnknown interface 570 includes a function 590 that when called returns a pointer to IViewGLObject interface 550 if the three-dimensional object can support OpenGL COM rendering interfaces and a function 600 that when called returns a pointer to IViewObject interface 580. IViewObject interface 580 includes a function 610 that when called returns a pointer to IViewGLObject interface 550 if the three-dimensional object can support OpenGL COM rendering and also includes a standard OLE Draw function 620. IView3DObject interface 550 includes a function 630 that when called returns a pointer to IViewObject interface 580, and includes a Draw function 640 as will be described below.
[0132] FIG. 19 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of determining whether the object supports OpenGL COM.
[0133] During initialization of an object, (e.g., creating or loading an object) the container queries IUnknown function 590 for a pointer to IViewGLObject interface 550 (step 660). At the same time, the container queries IUnknown function 600 for a pointer to IViewObject interface 550 in case the object does not support OpenGL COM (step 670).
[0134] In a preferred embodiment, the container further queries IViewObject function 590 for a pointer to IView3DObject interface 550. Once IView3DObject interface 550 is located, the container queries IView3DObject function 620 and ensures there is a pointer to IOleObject interface 580.
[0135] If the query of IViewObject function 610 of IUnknown function 590 return a NULL pointer (step 680), the server does not support the OpenGL COM rendering and the object is displayed in the conventional manner provided by OLE (step 690). If the above queries return a pointer to IView3DObject interface 550 the server supports OpenGL COM (step 700).
[0136] The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of the formal IViewGLObject interface:
[0137] 1.2.1.IViewGLObject::Draw
[0138] The use of the IViewGLObject::Draw function is relative straightforward. FIG. 20 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of having a server displaying the object by calling OpenGL COM functions.
[0139] In FIG. 20, the transformation matrix between the container's coordinate system and the display (World to View) is calculated (step 720). Next, clipping plane equations that specify which portions of the object are rendered, are defined (step 730). Based upon the transformation matrix and the clipping plane equations, the server then calls IViewGLObject::Draw to render the object (step 740).
[0140] The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of the formal Draw interface:
[0141] Note, the View to World and inverse: World to View matrices are both calculated. The World to View matrix is important to the server for view independent displays, for example, when text within an object should not display sheared, rotated or skewed.
[0142] 1.3. IOleInPlace3DObject
[0143] The IOleInPlace3DObject interface is used by three-dimensional container applications to negotiate the three-dimensional display context, especially during In Place activation of the server.
[0144] FIG. 21 illustrates the IOb 1eInPlace3DObject interface 760 for a user interface 770 of an object. User interface 770 includes an IUnknown interface 780 that is available in all OLE objects, and an IOleInPlaceObject interface 790 that is also available in all OLE objects which can In Place activate. IUnknown interface 780 includes a function 800 that when called returns a pointer to IOleInPlace3DObject interface 760 and a function 810 that when called returns a pointer to IOleInPlaceObject interface 790. IOleInPlaceObject interface 790 includes a function 820 that when called returns a pointer to IOleInPlace3DObject interface 760. IOleInPlace3DObject interface 760 includes a function 830 that when called returns a pointer to IOleInPlaceObject interface 790 and also includes a OnMode1MatrixChange function 840 as will be described below.
[0145] FIG. 22 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of determining whether the three-dimensional object supports In Place activation.
[0146] During initialization of an object, (e.g., creating or loading an object) the container queries IUnknown function 800 for a pointer to IOleInPlace3DObject interface 760 (step 860). At the same time, the container queries IUnknown function 810 for a pointer to IOleInPlaceObject interface 790 in case the object is not a three-dimensional object (step 870).
[0147] In a preferred embodiment the container further queries IOleInPlaceObject function 820 for a pointer to IOleInPlace3DObject interface 760.
[0148] If the query of IOleInPlaceObject function 820 or IUnknown function 810 return a NULL pointer (step 880), the object is not a three-dimensional object and the object is In Place activated using conventional OLE functions (step 890). If the above queries return a pointer to IOleInPlace3DObject interface 760 the three-dimensional object can be In Place activated (step 900).
[0149] The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of the formal IOleInPlace3DObject interface:
[0150] 1.3.1 IOleInPlace3DObject::OnModelMatrixChange
[0151] The OnMOdelMatrix function provides the In Place active server with a new attachment matrix when the container modifies its coordinate system.
[0152] FIG. 23 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of using the IOleInPlace3Object::OnModelMatrixChange function. In FIG. 23, the attachment matrix between the server's coordinate system and the container's coordinate system are initially calculated (step 920). Then, when the container's coordinate system is modified step (930), the container calculates a modified attachment matrix between the server's coordinate system and the modified container coordinate system (step 940). The container then calls OnModelMatrixChange to notify the In Place Server of the modified attachment matrix (step 950). With the modified attachment matrix, the In Place Server can then take the modified attachment matrix, for example, and call IViewGLObject::Draw to draw an updated view of the object.
[0153] The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of the formal OnModelMatrixChange interface:
[0154] In the case where containers are nested within other containers, the attachment matrix is built-up by concatenating all the attachment matrices from adjacent containers and servers. The resulting matrix is thus a mapping between the outermost three-dimensional container to the in-place server.
[0155] 2. Interfaces Enabling Navigation of A Container Environment
[0156] The new OLE interface as described herein provides a transition for three-dimensional servers and containers that include large numbers of objects having complicated relationships. Particular features enabled by these OLE interfaces include objects having non-rectangular boundaries and having transparent regions. Another particular feature enabled by these OLE interfaces includes enabling a container to provide multiple views of an object, for example a top, right-side, and front view of an object, at the same time. These new OLE interfaces also allow objects to become simultaneously In Place active in the different views, for example the object can be edited in one view and the results carried over automatically to the other views of the object.
[0157] FIG. 24 illustrates a top view 970, a front view 980, and a right-side view 990 of a three-dimensional object 1000. When three-dimensional object 1000 is activated or retrieved, the server asks the container for positions in which the container supports In Place activation, for example positions 1010, 1020, and 1030. In response to the container's positions, the server creates a “child” view of the object corresponding to each of those positions. Each view is individually controlled in a manner similar to the standard OLE method of displaying a view of the object. In FIG. 24, the server displays top view 970 in position 1010, front view 980 in position 1020, and right-side view 990 in position 1030.
[0158] Because each view is simultaneously In Place active, each view allows the server to receive events such as mouse clicks. With standard OLE, when a mouse click, occurs outside the In Place active view, the view is deactivated and cannot receive input. With the OLE extensions, however, events occurring outside the In Place Active view is received by the server without the server being deactivated. The default way to deactivate a server is with an <esc>, although the server can provide a menu selection or may interpret a double-click on another object as a signal become inactivate.
[0159] The primary interface facilitating these functions is IOleInPlaceViews, to which the server obtains a pointer via IOleInPlace3DSite::GetWindowContext, as will be described below.
[0160] 2.1. IOleInPlace3DSite
[0161] The IOleInPlace3DSite interface is an extension of the existing OLE IOleInPlaceSite interface and provides support for “In Place” activation of software applications creating three-dimensional objects. IOleInPlace3DSite functions are used in the same programming context as the IOleInPlaceSite functions, with added functionality described below. Specifically, the IOleInPlace3DSite interface allows servers to get the three-dimensional and view information from the container.
[0162] FIG. 25 illustrates the IOleInPlace3DSite interface 1050 for a user interface 1060 for a three-dimensional object. User interface 1060 includes an IUnknown interface 1070 that is available in all OLE objects, and an IOleInPlaceSite interface 1080 that is also available in all OLE objects which can In Place activate. IUnknown interface 1070 includes a function 1090 that when called returns a pointer to IOleInPlace3DSite interface 1050 and a function 1100 that when called returns a pointer to IOleInPlaceSite interface 1080. IOleInPlaceSite interface 1080 includes a function 1110 that when called returns a pointer to IOleInPlace3DSite interface 1050. IOleInPlace3DSite interface 1050 includes a GetModelMatrix function 1120 and a GetWindowContext function 1130 as will be described below.
[0163] FIG. 26 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of determining whether the three-dimensional object supports In Place activation.
[0164] During initialization of an object, (e.g., creating or loading an object) the container queries IUnknown function 1070 for a pointer to IOleInPlace3DSite interface 1050 (step 1150). At the same time, the container queries IUnknown function 1100 for a pointer to IOleInPlaceSite interface 1080 (step 1160).
[0165] In a preferred embodiment, the container further queries IOleInPlaceSite function 1110 to ensure there is a pointer to IOleInPlace3DSite interface 1050.
[0166] If the query of IOleInPlaceSite function 1110 or IUnknown function 1090 return a NULL pointer (step 1170), the three-dimensional object can not be In Place activated in more than one view (step 1180). If the above queries return a pointer to IOleInPlace3DSite interface 1050 the three-dimensional object can be In Place activated in multiple views (step 1190).
[0167] The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of the formal IOleInPlace3DSite interface:
[0168] 2.1.1 OleInPlace3DSite::GetModelMatrix
[0169] The first OleInPlace3DSite function GetModelMatrix allows an embedded server to determine the attachment matrix between the server and the top-most container's coordinate system. FIG. 27 illustrates the general concept of embedding a server. In FIG. 27, an object 1210 is embedded into a first container 1220 and first container 1220 embedded into a second container 1230. In order to facilitate positioning of object 1210 when the server is In Place active, an attachment matrix between the second container 1230 to the object 1210 is calculated, bypassing first container 1220.
[0170] FIG. 28 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of the IOleInPlace3DSite::GetModelMatrix function. In FIG. 28, the attachment matrix between the In Place active server's coordinate system and the immediately adjacent container's coordinate system is initially calculated (step 1250). The server then determines whether the immediately adjacent container was the top most container (step 1260). If, not the attachment matrix between the immediately adjacent container and the preceding container is calculated and appended to the attachment matrix (step 1270). Steps 1260 and 1270 are repeated until an attachment matrix between the top most container and the server is calculated. This attachment matrix is then passed to the server (step 1280).
[0171] The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of the formal GetModelMatrix interface:
[0172] This function is called by the in-place server and recurses until it reaches the outermost three-dimensional container, concatenating the matrices.
[0173] 2.1.2. OleInPlace3DSite::GetWindowContext
[0174] The second OleInPlace3DSite function GetWindowContext provides an interface between the outermost container and the In Place Server. As was illustrated in FIG. 27 object 1210 may be embedded into first container 1220 and first container 1220 embedded into second container 1230. Because the object can be embedded within several layers of containers, upon In Place activation of the server, the server and the top most container need to communicate with each other in order to pass system events. This interface is partially accomplished by passing a pointer to the IOleInPlaceViews interface of the outermost container to the object. The pointer to IOleInPlaceViews derives from the function GetWindowContext. IOleInPlaceViews interface will be described below.
[0175] The following is description of the preferred embodiment of the formal GetWindowContext interface:
[0176] This function recurses until it reaches the outermost three-dimensional container and returns its IOleInPlaceViews interface to the in-place server. This function establishes the handshaking between the outermost three-dimensional container and the three-dimensional in-place server.
[0177] 2.2. IOleInPlaceViews
[0178] The IOleInPlaceViews interface is derived from the IOleInPlace3DSite::GetWindowContext function (described above) and provides support for “In Place” activation of software applications that create three-dimensional objects. IOleInPlaceViews functions are used in the same programming context as the IOleInPlaceUIWindow functions, with added functionality described below. More specifically, IOleInPlaceViews allows servers to obtain view information from the three-dimensional containers, such as the location and size of views 1010, 1020, and 1030, in FIG. 24.
[0179] FIG. 29 illustrates the IOleInPlaceViews interface 1300 for a user interface 1310 for a three-dimensional object. User interface 1310 also includes a IOleInPlaceUIWindow interface 1320 that allows In Place active objects to negotiate border space, IOleInPlaceUIWindow includes function 1330. IOleInPlaceViews interface 1300 includes a EnumInPlaceViews function 1340, a GetViewContext function 1350, and a SetActive3DObject function 1360 as will be described below.
[0180] The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of the formal IOleInPlaceViews interface:
[0181] 2.2.1. IOleInPlaceViews::EnumInPlaceViews
[0182] The first IOleInPlaceViews function EnumInPlaceViews allow the server to receive a list of the container's view in which the server is In Place Activated. For example, in FIG. 24, views 1010, 1020, and 1030 would be enumerated as supporting In Place activation of the server.
[0183] The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of the formal EnumInPlaceViews interface:
[0184] This function, implemented by three-dimensional graphic containers, is called by In-Place three-dimensional servers to know the list of views concerned by in-place activation. Once the object has this list, it can ask for their context by calling IOleInPlaceViews::GetViewContext.
[0185] 2.2.2. IOleInPlaceViews::GetViewContext
[0186] The second IOleInPlaceViews function GetViewContext allows the server to obtain a transformation matrix between the top most container coordinate system and the display (i.e., world to view matrix). With this transformation matrix for each of the In Place active views, the server knows the proper display context on the display, knows how to properly process events such as mouse clicks on the display, and knows how to perform dynamic (rubberbanding) displays on that view. To avoid marshalling (defined in “Inside OLE 2” described above), a server could display itself by using the attachment matrix and World to View matrix to determine the context for the server view.
[0187] The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of the formal GetViewContext interface:
[0188] This function, implemented by three-dimensional graphic containers, is called by In-Place three-dimensional servers to initialize their display context. The pointer to the IGL interface is different here. The server must push the container's model matrix (see IOleInPlace3DSite::GetModelMatrix) and the pWtoV matrix before displaying in dynamics. After displaying, the server should pop the context back. This allows the container (possibly upon an IAdviseSink::OnViewChange) to send the display to other objects without concern for this object's display context.
[0189] 2.2.3. IOleInPlaceViews::SetActive3DObject
[0190] The third IOleInPlaceViews function SetActive3DObject allows the server to give the container a pointer to its IOleInPlaceActive3DObject interface, so that the container can modify the views, as will be described below.
[0191] The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of the formal SetActive3DObject interface:
[0192] To establish a direct link between the In-Place server and the container, the Server calls IOleInPlace3DSite::GetWindowContext and stores it, then it calls IOleInPlaceViews::SetActive3DObject giving its interface to IOleInPlaceActive3DObject, so the Container can store its connection too.
[0193] A more detailed in-place activation flow diagram, as illustrated in FIG. 35, is summarized below for convenience, although not necessary for one familiar with standard OLE. (Note: functions not described in the specification section are fully described in “Inside OLE 2” as described above): receiving IOleObject::DoVerb (or IOle3DObject::DoVerb), the server calls the following:
[0194] 2.3. IOleInPlaceActive3DObject
[0195] The IOleInPlaceActive3DObject interface allows the container to inform the In Place active object of any view changes, deletions or creations. The IOleInPlaceActive3DObject interface is an extension of the IOleInPlaceActiveObjeect interface and is implemented by three-dimensional containers supporting In Place Activation. IOleInPlaceActive3DObject functions are used in the same programming context as the IOleInPlaceActiveObject functions, adding the functionality of notifying the server of multiple views, as described below. The IOleInPlaceActive3DObject interface derives from IOleInPlaceViews::SetActive3DObject as described above.
[0196] FIG. 30 illustrates a IOleInPlaceActive3DObject interface 1380 for a user interface 1390. User interface 1390 includes IOleInPlaceActiveOBject interface 1400. IOleInPlaceActive3DObject interface 1380 includes a OnInPlaceViewChange function 1410, an OnInPlaceViewChange function 1420, and a OnInPlaceViewDelete function 1430 as will be described below.
[0197] The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of the formal IOleInPlaceActive3DObject interface:
[0198] 2.3.1. IOleInPlaceActive3DObject::OnInPlaceViewChange
[0199] The first IOleInPlaceActive3DObject function OnInPlaceViewChange is used when the outermost three-dimension container modifies one of its In Place views. An example is if the position of views 1020 and 1030 in FIG. 24 are switched. In response, the container calls OnInPlaceViewChange which notifies the In Place server of the change in the transformation matrices between the positioning of the views in the container and the server.
[0200] The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of the formal OnInPlaceViewChange interface:
[0201] The in-place server has to keep this information. One matrix (ViewToWorld) is used for locate purpose, the other one (WorldToView) for display in dynamics. These two matrices are passed because they might carry perspective or projection and can be singular, so one might not be deduced from the other one by inversion.
[0202] 2.3.2. IOleInPlaceActive3DObject::OnInPlaceViewCreate
[0203] The second IOleInPlaceActive3DObject function OnInPlaceViewCreate is used when the outermost three-dimensional container adds a new view of an object to the container. An example is if the container adds another view of object 1000 above position 1030, in FIG. 24. In response the container calls OnInPlaceViewChange, which notifies the In Place server of the new view.
[0204] The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of the formal OnInPlaceViewCreate interface:
[0205] 2.3.3. IOleInPlaceActive3DObject::OnInPlaceViewDelete
[0206] The third IOleInPlaceActive3DObject function OnInPlaceViewDelete is used when the outermost three-dimension container deletes a view of an object to the container. For example, if view 1010 of object 1000 in FIG. 24 is deleted, the container calls OnInPlaceViewDelete and notifies the In Place server to atop displaying that view.
[0207] The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of the formal OnInPlaceViewDelete interface:
[0208] The in-place server then remove this view from its “active view list” and free the useless context.
[0209] 3. Interfaces Enabling Three-Dimensional Object Interaction
[0210] The new OLE interfaces as described herein allow three-dimensional objects to interact with each other in the container coordinate system. When applications combine three-dimensional objects in complicated relationships within a container/document, to interact properly, objects must make use of spatial information of surfaces in other objects. This “interoperability” between objects extends to enabling one object to “find” the “elements” making up another object. What is done with that information is up to the user or server application. Interoperability further allows overlapping objects to utilize each other's position and geometry during complicated, precise-relationship manipulations. A common example involves the user wanting to manipulate some geometric element relative to the geometry of some other object (or element in the container).
[0211] FIG. 31 illustrates the IOleLocate interface 1440 for a user interface 1450 of an object. User interface 1450 includes an IOleItemContainer interface 1460 that is also available to OLE objects. IOleItemContainer interface 1460 includes a function 1470 that when called returns a pointer to IOleLocate interface 1440 if the object can return spatial information. IOleLocate interface 1440 includes a PointLocate function 1480, a ShapeLocate function 1490, and an IOleItemContainer function 1500 as will be described below.
[0212] To use IOleLocate, the server must insure that function 1470 can return a pointer to the IOleLocate interface 1460. Similarly, IOleLocate function 1500 must also return a pointer to IOleItemContainer interface 1460 so that the container can take advantage of other IOleItemContainer functions such as EnumObjects and ParseDisplayName (not shown). If the server only supports location of the object itself and not “elements” of the object, then IOleLocate need not be concerned with IOleItemContainer.
[0213] The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of the formal IOleLocate interface and variable type definitions:
[0214] 3.1 IOleLocate:PointLocate
[0215] The first IOleLocate function PointLocate enables a server to obtain a list of “elements” in another object that intersect a user defined boreline in space.
[0216] FIG. 32 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of locating elements in an object using the PointLocate function.
[0217] The user first defines a boreline within the container coordinate system (step 1520). Next, IOleLocate::PointLocate is called and the other servers respond to this function by determining what pieces of it (elements) intersect boreline (step 1530). Elements that meet the criteria are returned as a list of monikers (step 1540). (Alternatively, the object can simply return all of its elements.) Once the list of monikers is returned, the server then calls the BindMoniker helper function or IMoniker::BindToObject (described in the appendices) to bind each moniker, i.e., convert each element into an individual object (step 1550). Each new object that intersects the defined boreline can then be used by the server for any purpose.
[0218] FIGS. 34a-34cillustrate the use of the IOleLocate::PointLocate function. FIG. 34aincludes a first object 1590, a bolt, a second object 1600, a block with surface 1610 and 1620, and a boreline 1630. FIG. 34bincludes a first object 1640 and a second object 1650. FIG. 34cincludes a modified first object 1660, a bolt, and block 1600. Bolt 1590 was created in a first software application and transferred into the container, which created block 1600.
[0219] Without the IOleLocate::PointLocate function, bolt 1590 and block 1600 are simply within the container without any knowledge of other each other. With the IOleLocate::PointLocate function, bolt 1590, for example, receives information regarding other objects in the container. As illustrated in FIG. 34a, if the user wants to extend the length of bolt 1590 until it touches block 1600, the user first defines boreline 1630 along the axis of bolt 1590. The server then calls IOleLocate::PointLocate, as disclosed in FIG. 32. As illustrated in FIG. 34a, boreline intersects with surfaces 1610 and 1620 of block 1600, thus the IOleLocate::PointLocate function returns monikers for these surfaces. As illustrated in FIG. 34b, each moniker is then converted into first object 1640 and second object 1650. Since the server now knows the coordinates of first object 1640 and second object 1650, the user can extend the length of bolt 1590 until modified bolt 1660 touches block 1600, as illustrated in FIG. 34c.
[0220] The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of the formal PointLocate interface:
[0221] 3.2 IOlLocate:ShapeLocate
[0222] The second IOleLocate function ShapeLocate allows a server to obtain a list of “elements” in another object that intersect to a user defined shape in space.
[0223] FIG. 33 is a flow diagram of one embodiment of the process of locating elements in an object using the ShapeLocate function.
[0224] The user first defines a shape within the container coordinate system (step 1570). Next, IOleLocate:ShapeLocate is called and the other servers respond to this function by determining what pieces of it (elements) intersect the boreline (step 1580). Elements that meet the criteria are returned as a list of monikers (step 1590). (Alternatively, the object can simply return all of its elements.) Once the list of monikers is returned, the server then calls the BindMoniker helper function or IMoniker::BindToObject to bind each moniker, i.e., convert each element into an individual object (step 1600). Each object that intersects the defined shape and can be used by the server for any purpose. In operation, the IOleLocate::ShapeLocate function operates in the same manner as illustrated in FIGS. 34a-34c.
[0225] The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of the formal ShapeLocate interface:
[0226] Conclusion
[0227] In the foregoing specification, the invention has been described with reference to a specific exemplary embodiments thereof. Many changes, modifications, and additional extensions to OLE facilitating the transfer of three-dimensional specific information from an object created in a first software application to a second software application are readily envisioned and are included within other embodiments of the present invention.
[0228] The specification and drawings are, accordingly, to be regarded in an illustrative rather than in a restrictive sense. It will, however, be evident that various modifications and changes may be made thereunto without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the claims.
Claims
What is claimed is:
1. A computer-implemented method for processing software objects comprising:
creating an object server within a first software application program, the object server including data describing an object, and an implementation of a three-dimensional interface having three-dimensional interface methods;
retrieving the object server in a second application program; and
manipulating the object in the second application program by calling a method from the three-dimensional interface methods.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein the data describing the object includes coordinate information for the object with respect to a first coordinate system of the first software application, and wherein manipulating the object in the second application program comprises manipulating the object with respect to a second coordinate system of the second application program.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein the three-dimensional interface is an OLE compatible interface.
4. In a computer system having an object-oriented environment and a physical memory, a method for processing software objects comprising:
creating a first object server within a first software application program, the first object server including data describing a first object, the data including three-dimensional information for the first object, and an implementation of a three-dimensional interface having three-dimensional interface methods;
retrieving the first object server in a second application program; and
retrieving the three-dimensional information for the first object in the second application program by calling at least one method from the three-dimensional interface methods.
5. The method of claim 4 wherein the three-dimensional information for the first object includes three-dimensional size information of the first object, and wherein retrieving the three-dimensional information includes retrieving the three-dimensional size information of the first object.
6. The method of claim 5 further comprising:
creating a second object server within the second software application program, the second object server including data describing a second object; and
displaying a view in which the first object overlaps the second object, wherein visibility of the second object is based on the three-dimensional size information of the first object.
7. In a computer system having an object-oriented environment and a physical memory, a method for processing software objects comprising:
creating an object server within a first software application program, the object server including data describing an object, and implementation of a plurality of interfaces, each of said plurality of interfaces having interface methods;
retrieving the object server in a second application program; and
determining in the second application program if the object supports a three-dimensional interface.
8. The method of claim 7 wherein determining if the object supports the three-dimensional interface comprises querying an interface method for a reference to the three-dimensional interface.
9. A computer-implemented method for processing objects comprising:
providing a first object created using a first application program, the first object including data and a plurality of methods, the data including dimensional information for the first object;
receiving the first object in a second application program; and
invoking a first method from the plurality of methods of the first object in the second application program to retrieve the dimensional information for the first object.
10. The method of claim 9 wherein the dimensional information for the first object includes three-dimensional information, and wherein the dimensional information retrieved by invoking the first method includes the three-dimensional information for the first object.
11. The method of claim 9 wherein the dimensional information for the first object includes three-dimensional information, and wherein the dimensional information retrieved by invoking the first method includes two-dimensional information corresponding to the three-dimensional information for the first object.
12. In a computer system having an object-oriented environment and a physical memory, a method for processing software objects comprising:
creating an object server within a first software application program, the object server supporting a three-dimensional coordinate system and including data describing an object in three dimensions, and an implementation of a three-dimensional interface having three-dimensional interface methods;
providing a two-dimensional container which supports the three-dimensional interface;
retrieving the object server in the container;
retrieving a two-dimensional view of the object by invoking a three-dimensional interface method of the three-dimensional interface; and
displaying the two-dimensional view on a display.
13. The method of claim 12 wherein retrieving the two-dimensional view of the object comprises the container specifying a particular view to be retrieved for the object.
14. The method of claim 12 wherein retrieving the two-dimensional view of the object comprises the container calculating a transformation matrix between the three-dimensional coordinate system of the object server and the two-dimensional coordinate system of the display.
15. The method of claim 14 wherein displaying the view on the display comprises:
providing the transformation matrix to the object server; and
the object server displaying the two-dimensional view of the object on the display based on the transformation matrix.
16. A computer-implemented method for invoking software objects comprising:
creating an object server in the computer readable memory within a first software application program, the object server including data describing an OLE object, an implementation of a two-dimensional OLE interface having two-dimensional OLE interface methods, and an implementation of a three-dimensional OLE interface having three-dimensional OLE interface methods;
retrieving the object server in a second software application program; and
invoking at least one of the three-dimensional OLE interface methods from the object server within the second software application program, the second software application program serving as an object container for the object server.
17. A computer program product for processing software objects, comprising:
code for creating an object server within a first software application program, the object server including data describing an object, and an implementation of a three-dimensional interface having three-dimensional interface methods;
code for retrieving the object server in a second application program;
code for manipulating the object in the second application program by calling a method from the three-dimensional interface methods; and
a computer-readable medium for storing the codes.
18. In a computer system having an object-oriented environment and a physical memory, a computer program product for processing software objects, the program product comprising:
code for creating a first object server within a first software application program, the first object server including data describing a first object, the data including three-dimensional information for the first object, and an implementation of a three-dimensional interface having three-dimensional interface methods;
code for retrieving the first object server in a second application program;
code for retrieving the three-dimensional information for the first object in the second application program by calling at least one method from the three-dimensional interface methods; and
a computer-readable medium for storing the codes.
19. In a computer system having an object-oriented environment and a physical memory, a computer-program product for processing software objects, the program product comprising:
code for creating an object server within a first software application program, the object server supporting a three-dimensional coordinate system and including data describing an object in three dimensions, and an implementation of a three-dimensional interface having three-dimensional interface methods;
code for providing a two-dimensional container which supports the three-dimensional interface;
code for retrieving the object server in the container;
code for retrieving a two-dimensional view of the object by invoking a three-dimensional interface method of the three-dimensional interface;
code for displaying the two-dimensional view on a display; and
a computer-readable medium for storing the codes.
20. An apparatus comprising:
a memory, configured to store a first object, the first object created using a first application program and including data and a plurality of methods, the data including dimensional information for the first object; and
a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute a second application, and wherein the second application invokes a method from the plurality of methods of the first object to retrieve the dimensional information for the first object.
21. The apparatus of claim 20 wherein the dimensional information for the first object includes three-dimensional information, and wherein the dimensional information retrieved by the second application includes the three-dimensional information for the first object.
22. The apparatus of claim 20 wherein the dimensional information for the first object includes three-dimensional information, and wherein the dimensional information retrieved by the second application includes two-dimensional information corresponding to the three-dimensional information for the first object.
23. An object-oriented framework system comprising:
memory means for storing a first object, the first object created using a first application program and including data and a plurality of methods, the data including dimensional information for the first object;
processor means for executing a second application; and
means for invoking, from the second application, a method from the plurality of methods of the first object to retrieve the dimensional information for the first object.
Patent Citations (21)
| Patent | Date | Inventor | Cited By |
|---|---|---|---|
| US5019961 | 1991-05-01 | Addesso et al. | Applicant |
| US5187660 | 1993-02-01 | Civanlar et al. | Applicant |
| US5278954 | 1994-01-01 | Hohlfeld et al. | Applicant |
| US5299297 | 1994-03-01 | Reynolds et al. | Applicant |
| US5307452 | 1994-04-01 | Hahn et al. | Applicant |
| US5414801 | 1995-05-01 | Smith et al. | Applicant |
| US5414806 | 1995-05-01 | Richards | Applicant |
| US5428744 | 1995-06-01 | Webb et al. | Applicant |
| US5437008 | 1995-07-01 | Gay et al. | Applicant |
| US5455599 | 1995-10-01 | Cabral et al. | Applicant |
| US5467444 | 1995-11-01 | Kawamura et al. | Applicant |
| US5471541 | 1995-11-01 | Burtnyk et al. | Applicant |
| US5511157 | 1996-04-01 | Wang | Applicant |
| US5513310 | 1996-04-01 | Megard et al. | Applicant |
| US5530864 | 1996-06-01 | Matheny et al. | Applicant |
| US5542036 | 1996-07-01 | Schroeder et al. | Applicant |
| US5544301 | 1996-08-01 | Orton et al. | Applicant |
| US5682468 | 1997-10-01 | Fortenbery et al. | Examiner |
| US5692184 | 1997-11-01 | Ardoin et al. | Examiner |
| US5729671 | 1998-03-01 | Peterson | Applicant |
| US6052691 | 2000-04-01 | Ardoin et al. | Examiner |
Non-Patent Literature (40)
- Baldassari, Marco et al., “PROTOB: An Object Oriented Methodology for Developing Discrete Event Dynamic Systems”, Computer Languages, 16:1, pp. 39-63 (1991).Applicant
- Brockschmidt, “Inside OLE 2”, Microsoft Press (1994).Applicant
- Chryssostomidis, Chryssostomos et al., “Geometric Modeling Issues in Computer Aided Design of Marine Structures”, MTS Journal, 22:2 pp. 15-33. (1994).Applicant
- Dietrich, Walter C., Jr., et al., “TGMS: An Object-Oriented System for Programming Geometry”, Software—Practice and Experience, 19:10 pp. 979-1013 (Oct. 1989).Applicant
- Foley, James D., et al., “Computer Graphics: Principles and Practices”, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 2nd Edition, pp. 201-283 (1990).Applicant
- Garrett, J. H., Jr. et al., “An Object Oriented Environment for Representing Building Design and Construction Data”, Advanced Construction Technology Center, Document 89-37-04, pp. 1-34 (Jun. 1989).Applicant
- “Geometric Models for CAD/CAM”, Machine Design, pp. 99-105 (Jul. 24, 1990).Applicant
- Gross, Christian, “‘What about Windows N?’, (Microsoft Corp's new 32-bit operating system)”, Computer-Aided Engineering, 12:4, p. 58(3) (Apr. 1993).Applicant
- Grossman, David “AML as a Plant Floor Language”, Robitic & Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 2:3/4, pp. 215-217 (1985).Applicant
- Kaneko, Kunihiko et al., “Design of 3D CG Data Model of ‘Move’ Animation Database System”, Advanced Database Research and Development Series, vol. 3, Proceedings of the Second Far-East Workshop on Future Database Systems, pp. 364-372 (1992).Applicant
- Kaneko, Kunihiko et al., “Towards Dynamics Animation on Object-Oriented Animation Database System ‘Move’”, Advanced Database Research and Development Series, vol. 4, Database Systems for Advanced Applications '93, pp. 3-10 (1993).Applicant
- Katz, Randy H., “Toward a Unified Framework for Version Modeling in Engineering Databases”, ACM Computing Surveys, 22:4, pp. 375-408 (Dec. 1990).Applicant
- Kawabe, Shinji et al., “A Framework for 3D Modeling: Constraint-Based Description and Non-Manifold Geometric Modeling”, A collection of contributions based on lectures presented at the 2nd Toyota Conference, Japan, pp. 325-357 (Oct. 2-5, 1988).Applicant
- Kempfer, Lisa, “CAD Jumps on Windows 3.1 Bandwagon”, “(Computer-aided design, Microsoft Corp.'s graphical user interface)”, Computer-Aided Engineering 12:11, p. 24(2) (Nov. 1993).Applicant
- Krell, “A Graphics Package for Producing Three-Dimensional Hierarchical Graphics on Personal Computers”, Sigsmall PC 19:2, pp. 10-16 (Nov. 1, 1993).Applicant
- LeBlanc, Andrew et al., “Design Data Storage and Extraction Using Objects”, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 1:31-38 (1993).Applicant
- LeBlanc, Andrew R., “Design Data Storage and Extraction Using Objects”, ASME Winter Annual Meeting, Dec. 1-6, 1991, Atlanta, Georgia, pp. 1-7.Applicant
- “LINK3D, 2D to 3D Conversion Announced”, Businesswire (Mar. 23, 1993).Applicant
- Mekhabunchakij et al., “Interactive Solid Design Through 2D Representations”, Transactions of the Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers of Japan, E70:12, pp. 1220-1228 (Dec. 1, 1987).Applicant
- Nadile, Lisa, “CAD/CAM/CAE Consortium Agrees on OLE Specifications”, “OLE for Design & Modeling Applications”, Silicon Graphics World, 5:5, p. 5(1) (May 1995).Applicant
- Nadile, Lisa, “Computervision debuts development platform”, “Pelorus Application Development Platform”, PC Week, 12:2, p. 10(1) (Jan. 16, 1995).Applicant
- Nadile, Lisa, “Computervision Launches Design Automation Development Platform for Windows”, UNIX Desktop Applications, PR Newswire, p0110NE001 (Jan. 10, 1995).Applicant
- Nadile, Lisa, “Next stop Jupiter for CADCAM users”, “Microsoft is pushing for Intergraph's Jupiter technology to suceed in converting engineers and manufactures to Windows”, Engineer, 7252, p. 24 (May 25, 1995).Applicant
- Nadile, Lisa, “Value in 3-D”, Industry Week, p. 45 (Jan. 8, 1995).Applicant
- Olumolade, M. et al., “Object-Oriented Integration and Simulation of Manufacturing”, Proceedings of the 1990 Summer Computer Simulation Conference, pp. 249-252 (Jul. 16-18, 1990).Applicant
- Prosise, Jeff “2-D drafting: why pay more?”, PC Magazine, 12:4, p. 255(34) (Feb. 23, 1993).Applicant
- Rouse, Nancy E., “CAD Pioneers are Still Trailblazing”, Machine Design, 59:25, p. 227(5) (Oct. 22, 1987).Applicant
- Rouse, Nancy E., “EDA Licensing—Discusses Software Licensing in the Electronic Design Automation Business”, Electronic News, p. 44 (Jan. 16, 1995).Applicant
- Rouse, Nancy E., “Getting Packaging Specifications on Track”, Food & Drug Packaging, p. 28 (May 1994).Applicant
- Rouse, Nancy E., “Mechanical Design Software, (Buyers Guide)”, Computer-Aided Engineering, 12:12, p. 32(4) (Dec. 1993).Applicant
- Rouse, Nancy E., “Turning PRO”, Cadcam, 12(6), p. 33(3) (Jun. 1993).Applicant
- Santos, Jose L. T. et al., “Computer Aided Mechanical Engineering Design Environment for Concurrent Design Process”, Proceedings of the 1993 ITEC Workshop on Concurrent Engineering, Simulation in Concurrent Engineering, pp. 71-83 (May 1993).Applicant
- Sheu, “Object-Oriented Graphics Knowledge Bases”, Computer and Graphics, 12:1, pp. 115-123 (Jan. 1, 1988).Applicant
- Singhal, Anoop et al., “DDB: An Object Oriented Design Data Manager for VLSI CAD”, Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 467-470 (1993).Applicant
- Sreekanth, Uday et al., “A Specification Environment for Configuring a Discrete-Part Manufacturing System Simulation Infrastructure”, International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Systems Engineering in the Service of Humans, Conference Proceedings, 1:349-354 (Oct. 17-20, 1993).Applicant
- Sreenath, N., “A Hybrid Computation Environment for Multibody Simulation”, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 34, pp. 121-140 (1992).Applicant
- Summers, P. et al., ÁML: A Programming Language for Automation, IEEE Computer Society's Fifth International Computer Software and Applications Conference (1981).Applicant
- Suzuki, Hiromasa et al., “Geometric Modeling for Modeling Products”, Proceedings ICEGDG, Vienna, 2:237-243 (1988).Applicant
- Taylor, Russell H. et al., “An Integrated Robot System Architecture”, Proceedings of the IEEE 71:7, pp. 842-856 (Jul. 1983).Applicant
- Watanabe, Shun, “Knowledge Integration for Architectural Design”, Knowledge-Based Computer-Aided Architectural Design, pp. 123-146 (1994).Applicant