I'm not clear exactly how it would work without seeing the internals. Sounds cool conceptually, though. Always nice to be able to pick and choose what you want to use.
" ZigoEngine.extend(PennerEasing, Shortcuts, Flash8Color, Flash8Filters);" I wouldn't use extend as a method name, though! Jim Kremens On 10/22/05, Moses Gunesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This post goes out to really <anyone> here who's publishing and > dealing with the f8 upgrades, not just the Fuse userbase. (Some > exciting news guys, I've been confirmed to speak on Fuse at Flash > Forward Seattle - hope to meet some of you folks there!) So while I'm > awaiting Aral's resonse on whether Fuse will become an OSFlash > project here's the lowdown. > > I'm strategizing on how I add solid f8 support into the kit without > getting into a multiple version situation with my code, and without > ditching on F7 users. I know many designers will tend to lag behind > about a year in upgrading to the F8 authoring tool. Fuse is - for us > - a complete syntax for condensing those pesky, but often necessary > chunks of procedural code we all have to write, into something much > tidier, more readable and OO. But still the base ZigoEngine (tweening > engine) class is for everyone, and is favored by tons of beginning > coders, so I do need to cater to both camps, including non-upgraders. > > So here's my idea: Architect one highly extensible package and give > developers the option on what "extensions" to import. It would look > like this (doesn't work with current version!) -- > import com.mosesSupposes.fuse.*; > ZigoEngine.extend(PennerEasing, Shortcuts, Flash8Color, > Flash8Filters); > > This way, just about everything becomes optional, which lets you > control filesize more accurately. Like if you only plan to use 3 > easing equations you could just keep those separate and not use extend > (PennerEasing), or if you never use the shortcuts (obj.alphaTo, etc.) > you could omit extend(Shortcuts), plus select between F7Color vs. > F8Color and so on. > > It also makes it easier for you guys, the OS community, to jump in > and write your own additions to the kit which can be tossed in as > separate "extension" classes, without having to muck around in the > engine class itself. > > So what do you think about that strategy? Is this "overcomplicating" > things (which I definitely want to avoid) - or keeping things as > simple and flexible as possible? > > Thanks for your feedback! > Moses > > > > _______________________________________________ > osflash mailing list > [email protected] > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
