James Turner wrote:
> Usability was the main reason for making terrasync be available as
> in-process option, and I'm strongly considering doing the same thing
> for fgcom, although that has a few extra complications.
Whereas there's little use of TerraSync without the FG flight sim,
there are plausible usage scenarios for FGCom _without_ FlightGear,
let's say for ATC. Therefore, while it makes sense to package FGCom
alongside with FlightGear for the releases, I'm having mixed feelings
about incorporating FGCom into FlightGear core because this would
either:
a) require to bear all the ballast of FG even if the only thing you'd
like to have is FGCom, if FGCom development moves into FG or
b) carry the risk of FGCom-in-FG diverge from standalone FGCom.
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
