On 4/2/07, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Right now we really just need to worry about tying up the few > remaining loose ends with the current release. After that we'll be > looking at adding new features such as Animator, but I would first > like to see a larger scale adoption by the community before we attempt > to rope in a large chunk of new code.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that .Animator be added to the official tree. It duplicates a large chunk of the code in .Visual, so I'd be surprised if both wound up in the tree. Since Visual is already there, that'd mean that animator would replace visual. In a replacement scenario, it would be possible provide an API facade to match .Visual, but duplicating the various queue APIs would more than make up the difference between the two in size and getting the behavior to match would be a mess. It'd make a lot more sense to just write out the high level animation functions and make people rewrite their advanced effects, but that would mean there would be an API transition. I personally don't think a switch in how the engine works is worth breaking compatibility with existing code. The plan has always been to keep it as an unofficial component. I mean to get around to doing things right with Animator at some point, but work has been keeping me busy and I have higher priority non-work projects. Animator works well enough for me for the time being. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MochiKit" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mochikit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
