Re: [Dynapi-Dev] New File Structure

2001-05-01 Thread Michael Bürge
> Michael, > > If you look at the Compatability Matrix > http://mocha.ctlt.wsu.edu/DynAPIMatrix/matrix20010407.htm, we introduced new > problems with viewport, pushpanel, scrollpane and scrollpanel. I'm not sure > if you've resolved them or not. Maybe you could review it and post an > update.

RE: [Dynapi-Dev] New File Structure

2001-04-30 Thread Digital Strider
nks, Also, I think we should update the Matrix more frequently Ray -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Buerge Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 3:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] New File Structure > I think the

Re: [Dynapi-Dev] New File Structure

2001-04-30 Thread Michael Buerge
> I think the above are the issues we should really be focussing on here. > Particularly the fact that the API doesn't work on a Mac anymore. That's a > big let down for the Mac community, and would turn a lot of developers away > from using the API. Documentation in my mind is also a biggie. > >

RE: [Dynapi-Dev] New File Structure

2001-04-30 Thread Cameron Hart
> Additionally, I think the base API should focus on "staying lean and mean" > and solving some fundamental problems. That being: > > 1) Memory Issues (API and Widget) - This needs a focused effort as it is > probably the greatest handicap this API has right now. > 2) Documentation and Instruct

RE: Re[2]: [Dynapi-Dev] New File Structure

2001-04-30 Thread Eytan Heidingsfeld
I loved Raymond's first email and agreed with most of the rocks. Although I actually don't agree that Java is the cure (I have recently been involved in a Java project and boy is it hell. While profiling java string functions took up a third of our run-time) I do agree on making the server side co

Re: [Dynapi-Dev] New File Structure

2001-04-29 Thread Michael Pemberton
I fully agree with the splitting of the project, I see no problem with having the extensions built separately, I do however believe that the API should be built with extensions in mind. In my current structure, the type of language matches the file extension and directory. this would mean that w

RE: Re[2]: [Dynapi-Dev] New File Structure

2001-04-29 Thread Digital Strider
> (2) Lets face it, IE is rapidly approaching ubiquitous levels. In addition > to baseline DOM support MicroGreed also adds a series of "proprietary > extensions". The API's extension would be a great place to explore > expanding the "base" API into IE-centric add-ons (most of these can actuall

Re[2]: [Dynapi-Dev] New File Structure

2001-04-29 Thread Robert Rainwater
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 4/29/2001, 9:38:04 PM EST, Digital wrote about "[Dynapi-Dev] New File Structure": > In my opinion PHP is not the path of choice for server-side deployment. > PHP4 has some fundamental flaws in how it references objects in gene

RE: [Dynapi-Dev] New File Structure

2001-04-29 Thread Digital Strider
Ok, time for the "rockman" to put a little input here. I've put a "disgusting" amount of time in server-side strategies. Before I get to that I agree with the overall strategy to expand the scope and depth of the API. That said I think the best path is one similar to that deployed by PHPGroupWa