From 95e6fb16d09b497b8324b4465523acacff97b2c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: ZappoMan Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:17:57 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] cleanup --- libraries/shared/src/NodeList.cpp | 2 -- libraries/voxels/src/VoxelTree.cpp | 9 +++++++-- 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/libraries/shared/src/NodeList.cpp b/libraries/shared/src/NodeList.cpp index 4e24a6636c..48810f7521 100644 --- a/libraries/shared/src/NodeList.cpp +++ b/libraries/shared/src/NodeList.cpp @@ -24,8 +24,6 @@ #include #endif -// NODE_TYPE_VOXEL_SERVER - removed! - const char SOLO_NODE_TYPES[2] = { NODE_TYPE_AVATAR_MIXER, NODE_TYPE_AUDIO_MIXER diff --git a/libraries/voxels/src/VoxelTree.cpp b/libraries/voxels/src/VoxelTree.cpp index b758c8697d..7b8dd67dc2 100644 --- a/libraries/voxels/src/VoxelTree.cpp +++ b/libraries/voxels/src/VoxelTree.cpp @@ -305,8 +305,13 @@ int VoxelTree::readNodeData(VoxelNode* destinationNode, unsigned char* nodeData, childIndex++; } - - if (false && includeExistsBits) { + // Here's where we need to handle the idea of multiple voxel servers. If we have multiple voxel + // servers, then we don't want to "honor" exists bits for portions of the tree that the server in + // question is responsible for. Maybe we can handle this in the server and not "remove" bits for + // portions of the server that the server is not responsible for.... or maybe we need to let the client + // manage this concept. + const bool singleVoxelServer = true; + if (singleVoxelServer && includeExistsBits) { for (int i = 0; i < NUMBER_OF_CHILDREN; i++) { // now also check the childrenInTreeMask, if the mask is missing the bit, then it means we need to delete this child // subtree/node, because it shouldn't actually exist in the tree.