Thanks Karl for the reply, so using Animator side by side with Visual might break things?
On Apr 2, 11:01 pm, "Karl Guertin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
