Hey Campbell, my main -1 argument was because of the big language change. Also i was afraid of then having 2 files for a script (a py file for operators and 1 xml file for the ui)
The first 2 versions you propose now are much better than the xml version in my oppinion. I even would prefer the second method, as it is much more readable. As I said, let's focus more on what we have now and make changes to that. +1 to that now. ;-) Am 10.08.2010 05:34, schrieb Campbell Barton: > As I feared the 'XML' topic came up, and without replying to each > statement made above lets just say its a very different direction to > the one we have been going in and I can understand resistance. > > The original spec for 2.5 was that we would have a UI layout defined in > python, > So here are 2 examples of python defined declarative UI's which could > fairly easily co-exist with what we have now. > > - basically a python version of the XML panel > http://pastie.org/1083109 > > - this is python also but relies on having some custom classes defined > which would expand themselves into the data structure above. Its nice > in that it is much easier to read/write, but its also not pure python. > http://pastie.org/1083111 > > - original XML for reference. > http://pastie.org/1083129 > > For those who gave the proposal a -1, what about one of the 2 methods above? _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
