definitely java style 
definitally java style - it’s a Java API you are writing.
We’re smart enough to translate any DirectX method names to their Java equivilent
Are you going to make this a java.net project? Have you chosen a license?
Cheers,
Will.
Yes, i definitly want it to be a java.net project.
It will be open source, but I haven’t chosen a license yet, maybe GPL or LGPL …
BSD please
Cas
Go for BSD please … or else we can’t use it.
// Tomas
What about going the other way, and writing a “port” of DirectX? It would be a lot more work, but a lot more useful to people familiar with DX. By that, I mean generate the same class names as DX, with the same function calls, and have the work inside done by something lower-level like J3D (or perhaps even JOGL)?
In this way users of Dx could bring their knowledge to bear in Java projects to similar, but xplatform, results.
The biggest point of having Direct3D instead of OpenGL is that a lot of windows users don’t have OpenGL drivers installed.
I’m not sure I agree with that… Don’t have the LATEST OpenGL, perhaps…
That notwithstanding, the Dx-emulating wrapper could be done over something other than JOGL, as I stated…
OK, i will go for BSD
hasn’t got Java3D direct3D support? I believe I there were different versions for OpenGL and Direct3D at download. I’m not using Java3D anymore and that was maybe a year back, so it may well be possible for my information to be deprecated now. Maybe the source for that is public now after Sun made it a project at java.net (But I can well imagine Sun to have kept back exactly these parts of the code), so it might be a good idea to check that out.
Very good choice. The idea of these API’s is to restrict the developer-users as little as possible.
Will.