Shareable Named Attribute Node [Proposal]

[BD3D]

It seems that all these concepts topic are finally hitting reality now, surprising some users

@HooglyBoogly

• It makes assumptions about the way people work, and what kind of share-ability people want.
• It adds a limitation that is mostly arbitrary from the user’s perspective, removing flexibility without a benefit.

Touché

Note that I do not understand why this “problem” of sharability is such a big deal.

Such a big deal, that it apparently justified the removal of the get/input named attribute accessibility within nodetree?

@HooglyBoogly

strict design paradigm that geometry node groups are always share-able, and usable in any context someone needs, with any attribute names people have.

As @Hadriscus Said well

@Hadriscus

it’s the responsibility of whomever shares their node group to make sure it’ll work in a different context.

Also, important point:
Assuming constant re-usability is a wrong assumption.

The design paradigm of re-usable nodegroups do not apply to geometry node, because of the fact that using a nodegroup is mandatory in order to create a geometry node modifier at the first place.

These geometry modifiers (in blender or c4d or H…) are most of the time a one time usage, with no intention of re-usability except toward applying the effect on other objects.

So it seems that the root of the problem is coming from the fact that two very different paradigm, modifiers and nodegroups, are mixed together. This is creating “re-usability” conflict that cannot truly be resolved, as both paradigm have very different context

What do you think of this @HooglyBoogly ?
I hope that the designer who wanted to push re-usability is aware of this conflict.