>Extending the "core" is pretty damn easy (whether you mean >extending core objects or creating new ones, it's the same >concept anyways). >Basically, I'm not sure what work could be done on the core to >make it easier to use.
I agree, the COAPI is very easy to use and that is the direction I would like to see the rest of the FarCry code base move towards. The documentation says that FarCry has a few "rough-edges," it's these rough edges I'd like to see polished up. For example, why is the COAPI called via the fourq custom tag library at some points in the code? Why not just call the fourq object directly, as is done in other parts of the code? Why is the login functionality handled by a custom tag in the navajo tag library? Why not the security library? Why a custom tag at all? When I was initially digging into FarCry these are just a few of the questions I had. So I guess my question about the future of FarCry is, are the custom tags here to stay, or is the entire code base moving to a component based architecture? If there is an effort to move more of the code base into components, and I hope there is, what can we do to ensure that everyone is on the same page? There are differing opinions on how best to leverage components, even how to code them, so which ones are we to follow in core development? These questions are not meant to be a troll... I'm a very big fan of FarCry, I just want to see it keep getting bigger and better! --Nathan --- You are currently subscribed to farcry-dev as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MXDU2004 + Macromedia DevCon AsiaPac + Sydney, Australia http://www.mxdu.com/ + 24-25 February, 2004
