On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 12:08:11PM +0800, zou lunkai wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 03:59:19PM +0800, zou lunkai wrote: > > > > Doesn't one of the redesign attempts account for this ? > > > > One was: "keep info about which static character belongs to each frame" > > > > mc3 was placed in frame 4 and still alive, we're jumping to frame 5 > > > > so why should we build it again ? I guess its just the 'ratio' thing > > > > preventing that, right ? > > > > > > > > > > The problem is not ratio. It is mc1 and mc3 occupy the same depth. > > > When jumping back, mc1 need to be constructed again, which need a > > > depth already occupied by mc3. We don't know where to place mc1 at > > > construction time when jumping back. (Of course, to solve this single > > > case is not difficult, but it hurts current design) > > > > Do we really need to construct it or simply calling initialize handler > > does it ? The handler itself shouldn't be able to find mc1 anyway, right ? > > > > The actions code in the event handlers(INITIALIZE, CONSTRUCT, UNLOAD) > are able to find mc1. They are not special(tested with 'this', > 'getDepth'). There's updates on wiki TimelineControl, but haven't > been finished yet.
I've read the 5th redesign attempt, looks promising. I guess next step would be going on each of the scenarious listed on the wiki and verify it wouldn't break it. --strk; _______________________________________________ Gnash-commit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-commit
