On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 21:11 +0300, Henrik Hedberg wrote: > Is there really a good reason to assign only one animation object to > an actor and readjust that when the clutter_actor_animate* is called > again, instead of creating separate animation objects for each call of > the clutter_actor_animate*?
I don't have anything against composition of multiple animations. the first implementation of the animate() function allowed composition; after some discussions in the office, I decided to remove that because we didn't have the API to stop an animation and avoid conflicting settings. after some months, the composition behaviour was brought up again, this time with more API and some use cases. as a matter of taste, for compositing animations I'd rather have an AnimationGroup and then a clutter_actor_animate_with_group() - more flexible, but obviously it would need to wait the 1.1/1.2 cycle. ciao, Emmanuele. -- Emmanuele Bassi, Senior Engineer | [email protected] Intel Open Source Technology Center | http://oss.intel.com -- To unsubscribe send a mail to [email protected]
