----- Original Message -----
From: "David Gerding - Columbia College Chicago"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 12:23
PM
Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next
Generation
> As a complete newcomer to DynApi, I'm a little
reluctant to speak up. But
> since I'm a professor considering whether or not "evangelize" DynApi to our
> undergraduate class of over 300 interactive media designers, maybe a
> different perspective is worth something to those of you who have worked so
> hard to make DynApi.
> since I'm a professor considering whether or not "evangelize" DynApi to our
> undergraduate class of over 300 interactive media designers, maybe a
> different perspective is worth something to those of you who have worked so
> hard to make DynApi.
This is a VERY good thing.. It could
lead to wide-spread commercial acceptance of DynAPI as a tool
> PLEASE don't do a major object model overhaul. The current model seems
> sufficient. If your goal is to get DynApi widely adopted then stabilizing
> the core and working on cross-platform compatibility seem the top priority.
Agreed!
> For instance, the new documentation in the
latest release is a godsend. Now
> I can work my way through learning this thing in a logical manner.
> I can work my way through learning this thing in a logical manner.
Let's hear it for
Documentation!!!
> I look forward to helping develop the project in some way in the future.
> But first, I need to learn and understand it.
>
> I've got a lot of hope about this project. Thank you all for your efforts,
> and thanks for listening.
>
> Dave Gerding
> Columbia College Chicago
>
> p.s. has anyone contacted opera software directly about actively joining the
> development effort? It would seem to be in their interest to do so... just
> another thought.
And a very valid thought
indeed! Robert? Pascal?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Pascal
> Bestebroer
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 1:14 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation
>
>
> And to target the subject of this thread: Next Generation ? Huh? why? what?
> how?
>
> The current DynAPI should just be made ready for NS6 (and mac systems where
> possible)
>
> Even my proposal for combining DynLayer and DynDocument into a DynObject
> might be considered unneeded (although I think this structure would make it
> possible to create "managers" like a layout-manager, etc. which are not
> visual components but DO need the parent-child functionality as used in all
> other DynAPI components and am very willing to receive the flames and rocks
> on that one)
>
> I'm not sure what the extra functionality of that "next generation" DynAPI
> would be.. it would just be programmed in another style but that's it, at
> least as far as I can tell from the posts in this thread.
>
>
>
> Pascal Bestebroer
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.dynamic-core.net
>
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Namens Jordi 'IlMaestro'
> > Ministral
> > Verzonden: maandag 29 januari 2001 19:07
> > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Onderwerp: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation
> >
> >
> > In a perfect future, the target of this API would be the current
> > dreamweaver user. You should not need any programming skills to
> > build pages using DynAPI. Discussing if this or that programming
> > model is better makes sense when you are in a computer science
> > forum but in this case, if overloading this already-bloated API
> > with additional complexities does not result in a better
> > cross-browser support or a better end-user ( read desinger )
> > interface, then I'm against it.
> >
> > Sometimes the code is the objective, the goal of a project, and
> > then it makes sense to discuss how should code behave and be
> > structured. In this case the code is nothing but a tool: it has
> > to be properly programmed, but that's enough.
> >
> >
> > Henrik V�glin wrote:
> >
> > > About the current discussion on OO, JS, OOJS and the confusion
> > on what they are:
> > >
> > > OO is the model.
> > > OOM is the method.
> > > OOP is the technique.
> > >
> > > Therefor JS is a tool of the prottyping OO technique. It's
> > unnecessary to create a more classbased structure of what is
> > essentially a merge of prototyping and class-inheritance (ie
> > DynAPI). It's merely a question of approach wheter to use
> > prototyping - which is more towards experimental development - or
> > class inheritance. the only real different is wheter to allow for
> > more unconditional extensability that is the default of
> > javascript and which DynAPI is mostly today VS a more conditional
> > class inheriting technique.
> > >
> > > Personally I vote for the previous and I think most others who
> > are more designers at heart prefer it to remain so. The only
> > reason to make DynAPI more class inheriting would be to attract
> > more OOP developers (who generally are more used to
> > class-inheritencing tools), which of course would be great for
> > development, but distracts more from those who need the API more
> > - the designers. Consider the folloowing...
> > >
> > > Developers don't need a new language as much as designer does.
> > There's enough class-inheriting OOP tools around for developers.
> > I also think Microsoft is moving out of range for designers with
> > their new .NET structure which the new ASP+ currently in beta is
> > part of. Is DynAPI OO (or next gen) to compete with .NET? I vote
> > for keeping DynAPI structure developing as it is and remain a
> > real API, not a programming semi-language!
> > >
> > > My plead is to focusing on targetting DynAPI for designers. A
> > OO DynAPI might instead be bringing design enhancement for
> > programmers to comprehand. In other words: keep it separated and
> > focus more on different users, but of course all kind of exchange
> > of knowledge is a good thing - so also keep a symbiotic
> > relationship between the two (and maybe designers and developers
> > will come to understand eachothers expertise areas more).
> > >
> > > Henrik V�glin [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Pascal
> Bestebroer
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 1:14 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation
>
>
> And to target the subject of this thread: Next Generation ? Huh? why? what?
> how?
>
> The current DynAPI should just be made ready for NS6 (and mac systems where
> possible)
>
> Even my proposal for combining DynLayer and DynDocument into a DynObject
> might be considered unneeded (although I think this structure would make it
> possible to create "managers" like a layout-manager, etc. which are not
> visual components but DO need the parent-child functionality as used in all
> other DynAPI components and am very willing to receive the flames and rocks
> on that one)
>
> I'm not sure what the extra functionality of that "next generation" DynAPI
> would be.. it would just be programmed in another style but that's it, at
> least as far as I can tell from the posts in this thread.
>
>
>
> Pascal Bestebroer
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.dynamic-core.net
>
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Namens Jordi 'IlMaestro'
> > Ministral
> > Verzonden: maandag 29 januari 2001 19:07
> > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Onderwerp: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Next Generation
> >
> >
> > In a perfect future, the target of this API would be the current
> > dreamweaver user. You should not need any programming skills to
> > build pages using DynAPI. Discussing if this or that programming
> > model is better makes sense when you are in a computer science
> > forum but in this case, if overloading this already-bloated API
> > with additional complexities does not result in a better
> > cross-browser support or a better end-user ( read desinger )
> > interface, then I'm against it.
> >
> > Sometimes the code is the objective, the goal of a project, and
> > then it makes sense to discuss how should code behave and be
> > structured. In this case the code is nothing but a tool: it has
> > to be properly programmed, but that's enough.
> >
> >
> > Henrik V�glin wrote:
> >
> > > About the current discussion on OO, JS, OOJS and the confusion
> > on what they are:
> > >
> > > OO is the model.
> > > OOM is the method.
> > > OOP is the technique.
> > >
> > > Therefor JS is a tool of the prottyping OO technique. It's
> > unnecessary to create a more classbased structure of what is
> > essentially a merge of prototyping and class-inheritance (ie
> > DynAPI). It's merely a question of approach wheter to use
> > prototyping - which is more towards experimental development - or
> > class inheritance. the only real different is wheter to allow for
> > more unconditional extensability that is the default of
> > javascript and which DynAPI is mostly today VS a more conditional
> > class inheriting technique.
> > >
> > > Personally I vote for the previous and I think most others who
> > are more designers at heart prefer it to remain so. The only
> > reason to make DynAPI more class inheriting would be to attract
> > more OOP developers (who generally are more used to
> > class-inheritencing tools), which of course would be great for
> > development, but distracts more from those who need the API more
> > - the designers. Consider the folloowing...
> > >
> > > Developers don't need a new language as much as designer does.
> > There's enough class-inheriting OOP tools around for developers.
> > I also think Microsoft is moving out of range for designers with
> > their new .NET structure which the new ASP+ currently in beta is
> > part of. Is DynAPI OO (or next gen) to compete with .NET? I vote
> > for keeping DynAPI structure developing as it is and remain a
> > real API, not a programming semi-language!
> > >
> > > My plead is to focusing on targetting DynAPI for designers. A
> > OO DynAPI might instead be bringing design enhancement for
> > programmers to comprehand. In other words: keep it separated and
> > focus more on different users, but of course all kind of exchange
> > of knowledge is a good thing - so also keep a symbiotic
> > relationship between the two (and maybe designers and developers
> > will come to understand eachothers expertise areas more).
> > >
> > > Henrik V�glin [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
