No objections to exploring the use of the library. Just wanted to say we should not block existing work on using the new library. Yes, this means we'll need to refactor the code to handle the new library later, instead of just doing it now. But we'll need to do that anyway for the other places in the code where we'd transition to use the new library.
----- Original Message ----- > Hey all, > There's a well-established animations framework called NineOldAndroids > (https://github.com/JakeWharton/NineOldAndroids/) by Jake Wharton that > allows us to use Android's animations API on pre-HC devices. > We have our own animations framework, but it's more limited. Arbitrary > example: it doesn't support PropertyValuesHolder to build animations, > which is what the "jiggle" animation uses in bug 1011712. In the past, > we've sometimes worked around this by simply omitting these animations > on older devices, but since there's a library that gives full > backwards-compatibility for the animations API, it seems like it would > be a good idea to use it. Aside from being able to support older > devices, using a well-established API would also give us access to > other libraries that rely on it (e.g., we might want to use > https://github.com/nhaarman/supertooltips for bug 1011712). > Any objections to transitioning from our existing animations framework > to NineOldAndroids? > Brian > _______________________________________________ > mobile-firefox-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mobile-firefox-dev
_______________________________________________ mobile-firefox-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mobile-firefox-dev
