On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Dan Eicher <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Campbell Barton <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Mentioned some of the problems we have with the API as I see it in a >> mail a while back, not many things have changed since then. >> > A lot of that stuff just needs someone to make a decision. yep, but even to list changes, give some justifications, allow for some discussion - it takes time/energy.
IMHO you dont have to look that far to find issues with the existing rna/api, anyone who's interested can evaluate some area, list the most obvious/simple problems Mail the list with suggested amendments, agree on what to change, then write up a patch and submit it. > Things like "all add functions will be called foo_add()" or "all collections > will override add() and remove() instead of using new() and delete()". Could > also have controlled breakage this way, all add_foo() calls (and the bundled > scripts that use them) could be fixed on one commit. Editing bundled scripts to update with the changes is not so hard, sometimes I batch process this, another reason I like having addons within our svn repo. > Then someone writing a script will know that if foo.collection.add() doesn't > work it's a bug that needs to be reported and worked around. Also help with > finding the shortcomings in makesrna -- for example nodetree.nodes.new() > won't work because it needs a pointer to the nodetree but there's no flag > like USE_REPORTS that can pass it to the new() function. fairly sure USE_REPORTS could be enabled for this. > Not that I don't appreciate how busy y'all are these days. There's always time but I prefer to work on this stuff back home with less distraction. -- - Campbell _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
