I think much of this derives from the original understanding of Xtras, and the migration of a lot of Director functionality from within the runtime engine itself into Xtras (said migration occurred mainly between D5 and D6.x, complete with the engine overhaul in D7).
The touted benefit was that the Xtras could be updated without revving the whole product, implying support for newer things without the need for a new product release (and/or bug fixes without having to re-QA the whole product).
That's probably where the idea took hold that something like, say, the Flash asset Xtra, could be upgraded to the new release of Flash, without having to rev the whole product. I think people probably got the idea that you could put out a new QuickTime Xtra, or Flash Xtra or whatever without forcing people to wait for a new release of Director. I bet if I search my archives of lingo-l and mmxdk-l I can probably find messages to this effect.
I'm not necessarily arguing against how things are done right now, I'm just trying to clarify why people have the impression about this subject that they do.
- Tab
At 05:30 PM 10/15/03, Colin Holgate wrote:
Gee, catch questions are fun...
Only if you get the catch. As you've read by now, the first catch was that the first Flash Xtra wasn't tied to any release. The second catch was more subtle, Flash 4 support in 7.02 fully complies with the non-paying non-major update that introduced new Flash support, but the catch is that you can make the argument that 7.02 was really the 7.0 that would have come out if it had stayed in beta another five months. So really the Flash 4 support sort of comes under the 7.0 major release, even though 7.0 only did Flash 3.
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
