John Wojnaroski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Excuse me, but if you go back you will see that I allowed to the fact that I > was unclear on the idea > of the properties, but was willing to give it a go. If this is truely an > open source project then other > ideas and opinions need to be honored, not just the few with dictatorial > commit authority! >
That doesn't sound quite right from my experience, but i should also say this: Even though these concepts and ideas get discussed on the list often the final decision seems to be done off list. It might be good for someone to pre-announce when they are going to remove or rewrite a major class. While I've seen projects get ruined by too much central authority, personally I appreciate the help of people who already know the project and have a sense of where things ought to be going. I think the FlightGear project strikes a very nice balance. > Property names do change occasionally, but the > > breakages those changes cause are much less violent (and easy to debug > > using the property browser). > > > I don't agree with that. IMHO that might be true if one is already cognizant > and comfortable with the architecture. C++ is a common reference point and > moving away from it adds obfuscation. And the more I > think about it the less I like it. If one is writing code for a small group > then properties might be okay, but in a > larger group and open source efforts it seems that changes need to move more > slowly and at a more measured pace > Having used the property system to learn what I have so far about the code and debug some of it, I'd have to say it helps. Or at least it is more convenient...sort of like having a built in debugger. On the other hand it can badly obfuscate some of the workings since they are not classified the way C++ objects are. > > As Curt has mentioned recently, we do plan to remove most of > > FGInterface as well, when we have the chance; we are able to test that > > nothing in the FlightGear code base breaks, but obviously, we have no > > way to test external code. > > Whoa! The arrogance of it all. Sounds like the microsoft way. Do it my way > or no way. If your code breaks it's your fault. No the microsoft way is: "Yeah we broke that on purpose so you'll have to buy more of our products" :-D Best, Jim _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
