On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Martin Spott <martin.sp...@mgras.net> wrote: > "Vivian Meazza" wrote: > >> [...] And I can't see any real advantage over Fred's implementation in >> FGRun, which I have used for years. > > Some people _do_ see a real advantage. > >> This is more or less consistent with Gene's, Csaba's and Ron's view - I'm >> happy to set this all up, and more, in a separate GUI. > > "This" is not consistent with Gene's, Csaba's and Ron's view. If you > read carefully, then you'll realize that these three guys have > primarily expressed their opinion on wether to have the GUI inside the > visual system or not.
It is pretty consistent with mine, actually. For example, if you have 2 separate scenery "consumers" it would make sense if they both sent requests to the same terrasync instance. If both included their own terrasync copy, who knows what confusion might result (double download, svn lock, etc.). Another scenario could be if the scenery data resided on a separate machine - it would make sense to run a terrasync daemon there and not embedded in FG. My setup is an example for both cases, because I have my scenery data on an NFS share that my laptop and my desktop use. Finally, there could be other programs that need scenery data, would you embed terrasync in each one? I view this as bad design. -- Csaba/Jester ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EditLive Enterprise is the world's most technically advanced content authoring tool. Experience the power of Track Changes, Inline Image Editing and ensure content is compliant with Accessibility Checking. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ephox-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
