On 1/1/08, Emmanuele Bassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 12:07 +0000, iain wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-12-30 at 18:31 +0000, Emmanuele Bassi wrote: > > > > > Clutter has no need for a global MVC architecture (mostly because we do > > > not allow multiple views of the same scenegraph) > > > > Annoyingly though this could be useful if/when clutter can do multiple > > stages. > > even though it could mean having a stage redrawing the same scene graph > of the primary stage, that's not the point of a model-view split for > scene graph rendering; a MVC implementation would be suitable for cases > when multiple rendering backends: you build the scene once and then feed > it to a renderer-like object using GL and again to a renderer-like > object using Cairo to draw to a PS surface. > > this would imply a general rework of how Clutter works and I really > don't think it should be a target for short-medium term. Clutter is a > GL-based toolkit; having multiple stages is a technical issue concerning > the drawing pipeline and GL contexts - having multiple renderers for the > scene graph implies a greater design change.
Sure, but this doesn't change the fact that at a glance, the generic name ClutterModel doesn't indicate what exactly is being modeled. It's not a big issue, but IMO you don't lose much by making the name more specific (e.g. ClutterListModel or similar) even if you have no immediate plans to add any other models to clutter. -- jonner -- To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
