I'm afraid I have to agree here.. The current structure of the DynAPI is as close to 'proper OO' as on can get with such a OO-challenged scripting language. I say this with the confidence of experience. - hell, I tought the stuff (c++,VB(OOish), and even Javascript)
One of the selling points of the DynAPI is not just that it supports many browser/platforms, but also that simply downloading and unzipping the distro (and may a _little_ wotk) gives you further support and reduces bugs/issues. If I have to tell my current clients tha in order to support NS/IE6 they are going to have to pay me a couple thousand dollars over the original price they will rip up my contract and take me to court. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Pemberton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Dynapi-Dev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 7:08 AM Subject: Re: FW: [Dynapi-Dev] Fw: widgetspec > But doesn't this simply result in abstraction which, in the very theory of the > process, is just wrapping one function in another. > > One minute you were suggesting that we remove the dynlayer abstration and > manipulate the layers directly, next you want to add extra levels of code. It > is becoming confusing with the two theories coming from the same person. > > I think we need to focus on getting the existing objects / structures working in > a fashion that allows for the project to grow. Instead of constantly going back > to the drawing board. If you want to rebuild the structure, do so as a side > project in your spare time and come back when you have a more substantial case. > > All this speculation is just clouding the issue. And before people start > flaming me and accusing my off saying one thing and doing another, I have done > exactly what I expect of others. I have in no way forced my version onto the > developers / users of the DynAPI. Nore have I requested that they move away > from the standard version. > > I have no problem with people developing a customised version. But it is a bit > hard to expect other developers to make the jump to a new structure without > seeing it in action. As someone who has done the whole restructure process and > knows how long it takes, it is almost impossible to redesign the structure > (either internal or external) and still keep the same functionality and ease of > use. > > It all comes down to a balance. I had the time and was willing to put the hours > in. However, it took almost 4 months of work to get the code back up to the > same level as te official version. If anyone wants to reduce this time by using > additional developers, by all means, go ahead. But you need to give more info / > examples of what you want. The DynAPI is too developed and too established to > start redesigning on a whim. > > -- > Michael Pemberton > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ICQ: 12107010 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dynapi-Dev mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ _______________________________________________ Dynapi-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
