Status of clones inside clones?

General TouchDesigner Discussion
1

Is it still not recommended not to use nested clones?

Here’s an example setup:
“/foo” clones “/masterDefinitions/foo_Definition”
“/foo/nestedComp” clones “/masterDefinitions/nestedComp_Definition”
and
“/masterDefinitions/foo_Definition/nestedComp” also clones “/masterDefinitions/nestedComp_Definition”
nested.1.toe (2.33 KB)

2

Clones inside clones were added almost a year ago (noted in release notes for Build 599 of 068). Everything is fine in this test file right?

Clones of clones don’t work correctly though.

3

right, messed up the terminology. The file seems fine (but there’s almost nothing in the nodes yet)

I’m asking cause there is a case which could qualify as “clones of clones”, but I’m sot sure.

"/foo" clones "/masterDefinitions/foo_Definition"

and

"/masterDefinitions/foo_Definition/nestedComp" clones "/masterDefinitions/nestedComp_Definition"

Would that qualify as a “clone of clone”?

4

Malcolm, it would be really helpful if you could tell me if this would be a “clone in a clone” or a “clone of a clone” (or just if I have to expect any problems with such a setup)

Thanks

5

This case is not a clone of a clone. The reason being that

foo/nestedComp is cloning /masterDefinitions/nestedComp_Definition, not /masterDefinitions/foo_Definition/nestedComp.

If you were to have another COMP inside /masterDefinitions/nestedComp_Definition (which would be cloned in /masterDefinitions/foo_Definition/nestedComp), and you tried to clone that COMP directly, that would be a clone of a clone. Or if you tried to clone /masterDefinitions/foo_Definition/nestedComp directly, thats also a clone of a clone.

Basically the fact that foo/nestedComp has it’s clone string filled in creates a link to a non-clone (/masterDefinitions/nestedComp_Definition), instead of cloning /masterDefinitions/foo_Definition/nestedComp.

Make sense? its hard to explain correctly.

6

Should have used better naming in the first place, but yes, make sense. Thank you